Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Berwick-upon-Tweed

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will pay an official visit to Berwick-upon-Tweed to evaluate the adequacy of the assistance given by his Department towards development and conservation in the area.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): No, Sir. I am satisfied that my Department is giving appropriate assistance towards both development and conservation in the Berwick-upon-Tweed area.

Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, followng his decision on the shipyard, people in Berwick are left wondering how a town with over 500 historic buildings can be conserved, where the money can be found and how the housing programme for the development that the Department has approved can be financed? Does he realise that neighbouring Scottish towns have the benefit of the Scottish Special Housing Association for housing schemes and that comparable assistance is needed in Berwick?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman will know that while I rejected the proposed development on the north bank of the river I accepted in principle the pro-

posed development on the south bank which, I think, will produce more jobs. In the last few years my Department has spent over £2 million helping Berwick-upon-Tweed in various ways. At the moment the SSHA has no powers to operate outside Scotland, but under the Housing Bill now before the House, which I hope will be completed before the end of July, registered housing associations in England will be able to build in Berwick without any call on the general rate fund.

Sir William Elliott: As regards the general environment of the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency, which is part of Northumberland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to note that the ending of the hotel development grant in March last year severely curtailed hotel development in Berwick-upon-Tweed and Northumberland generally to the detriment of the tourist trade, which has become extremely important to the area? Will he consider reinstituting a grant for middle-range hotel development at least on a level commensurate with the previous one?

Mr. Crosland: My Department is not responsible for the hotel development scheme, although I initiated it when I was at the Board of Trade some years ago. However, I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade who is responsible for hotel development.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Perhaps the Secretary of State will advise the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the answer to his problem is to have Berwick returned to Scotland.

Holiday Traffic (South-West England)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with arrangements to combat holiday traffic congestion in the South-West and Cornwall this summe.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): Yes, Sir. The holiday route system has an inbuilt flexibility which has responded to changing conditions since its inception in 1969 and I am satisfied that the arrangements made for this summer


utilise to the full the various options available for the management of holiday traffic.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that the inevitable cuts in public expenditure, both past and present, will mean that road building in the South-West, particularly new bypasses, cannot keep pace with the increase in holiday traffic? What plans has his Department worked out to ensure the easing of road congestion through the better use of the existing rail system?

Mr. Carmichael: This matter was fully dealt with in the debate on the railways a week ago last Monday when every encouragement was given to them through the extra money being put into the rail network to improve services. On routes and bypasses, I think that the hon. Gentleman should await an announcement which is to be made fairly soon.

Mr. Fox: Would the hon. Gentleman care to enlarge on the announcement regarding the consultation paper? May we take it that it will include the reduction of 400 miles and the effect that that will have on the bypasses about which we are talking?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to wait until the paper comes out. It is a somewhat lengthy matter to deal with in a question-and-answer session like this. The paper should be out fairly soon.

Building Societies

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further communications he has received from the building societies relating to mortgage interest rates; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement about building societies.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on official financial assistance to the building societies, and its effect on mortgage interest rates.

Mr. Crosland: On 14th June the Building Socieities Association accepted the offer of the third tranche of £100 million under the Government's short-term loan scheme. As a result of this scheme, there has been no general increase in building society mortgage rates. The Government and the association are keeping in regular consultation on these matters.

Mr. Whitehead: After that welcome statement that the substantial capital inflow into the building societies continues, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that there is no reason for an increase of even ½ per cent. in interest rate? Will he tell us how many societies have not taken up the Government's offer, how many of them have now increased their rates by ½ per cent., causing many complaints among our constituents, and what he proposes to do about the situation?

Mr. Crosland: On my hon. Friend's last point, a number of smaller societies which have not taken part in the scheme have increased their rates by a certain percentage, but these societies are in total responsible only for less than ½ per cent. of total building society lending. On the matter of the proposed ½ per cent. increase to cover the margin problem, I have this very much in mind and so have the building societies. I should, however, make my broad intention clear. We have frozen council and private rents for this year and I am determined that the owner-occupier should not pay a higher mortgage rate this year.

Mr. McCrindle: What progress is being made towards achieving a low-start mortgage scheme for first-time buyers? We welcome the discussions which the Government are now having with the Building Societies Association, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the achievement of such a scheme is still within the aim of the Government?

Mr. Crosland: I know of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in low-start mortgages. This is an extremely important matter which is on the agenda of our joint discussions with the building societies. It will form part of a longer-term review that we are conducting into how best to ensure a stable and adequate flow of mortgage finance on the most sensible terms.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to a


suggestion made a little while ago, that the banks should make available some of their huge profits for loans at reasonable rates to intending house owners?

Mr. Crosland: The huge profits of the banks are likely to be rather lower this year than last year, for a number of reasons. But we are, as part of our longer-term studies, considering the whole question of how and whether the building societies or mortgage lending as a whole should have access to institutional funds of one kind or another. This is not confined merely to the banks. We are also considering whether pension funds, insurance companies and the rest should make a contribution to the total amount to be made available for mortgage lending.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does one of the right hon. Gentleman's previous supplementary replies mean that the Government are prepared to leave the composite rate which the building societies pay as it is at present, and not increase it as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement? Has the right hon. Gentleman made any request to the building societies that they should use part of the Government's loan money to finance new house building to avoid a situation which could otherwise occur in which, just as there is an upsurge in demand, there is a falling-off in house building?

Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Lady's first point is the same as that about reducing the operating margin, which the building societies claim was imposed on them by the increase in the composite rate of tax in the Budget. This matter is now under active discussion with the building societies and it will be discussed tomorrow at the next meeting of the joint advisory committee. With regard to the question of how to employ the short-term Government loan, we have not laid down detailed conditions. The whole object of the exercise is that this loan should be employed in a way which is best in terms of restoring desperately-needed confidence in the private house building industry.

Land Development

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce legislation to

bring into public ownership land required for development.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to give details of his plans for land nationalisation.

Mr. Crosland: We shall announce our proposals as soon as possible.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he realise that if the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—which was known as the Silkin Act—had remained on the statute book the huge profits made from land since the time the Tories came to power and put the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 into operation would have been avoided? Does he also realise that it is necessary for legislation to be brought forward urgently to ensure that houses, schools and hospitals are built and industrial sites provided at less cost to the community?

Mr. Crosland: There is no doubt that things would have been very much better today had the Tories not reversed and repealed first the 1947 Act and later the initiative which we took in 1965. With regard to the urgency of this matter, I am well aware of all the considerations to which my hon. Friend alludes and I can promise him that a statement will be made before the end of the year.

Mr. Latham: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have the detailed discussion which is essential with the affected industries before or after publication of the Bill containing the proposed legislation?

Mr. Crosland: As the hon. Gentleman knows from his previous employment, we have received memoranda on this subject from the National House Building Council and the House Builder's Federation. I wish to make clear, however, that when we make our proposals we shall not put them in the form of a Green Paper or a consultative document. The policy of the Labour Party when in opposition and of the Government now in power has been made clear, and publication of our proposals will take the form of a positive announcement of Government policy.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is massive


support outside the House for legislation of this nature? Does he also appreciate that many of us would like an emergency Bill to be brought forward so that, if necessary, we could test public opinion at the forthcoming General Election in relation to whether Opposition Members are prepared to continue to support racketeering in land, which they have done since 1951?

Mr. Crosland: An emergency Bill as such might present some difficulties to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I can promise my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) that public ownership of development land will be a major issue at the next General Election.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his failure to give an indication of his intention regarding land already carrying planning consent—which particularly involves small builders, to whom the matter is very important—is causing great problems in the building industry? Can we have an advance statement on the right hon. Gentleman's intention in this matter?

Mr. Crosland: I do not want to make an advance statement. I should like as soon as possible to make a much more definitive statement. On the question of uncertainty regarding the land market, I want to bring this to an end as soon as is humanly possible. But I must point out that that uncertainty, such as it is, is not the main inhibiting factor in the housing building programme.

Mr. Rossi: Has any estimate been made of the cost involved in taking development land into public ownership, whether by local authorities or by the central Government? Is it within the right hon. Gentleman's thinking that none of this land should be available for freehold houses in accordance with the Labour Party policy declaration in 1973?

Mr. Crosland: With regard to the freehold question, I can confirm and underline what was said in the Labour Party policy in 1973: that the freehold of an owner-occupier will not be touched in any way by our proposals. I cannot give an estimate regarding the cost of taking development land into public ownership, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that this will repre-

sent the best investment by the community for many years.

Rent Freeze

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total cash benefit to tenants resulting from his Department's freeze of rent increases approved by rent officers.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): This information is not available.

Sir A. Meyer: I declare an interest in that I own a house which is let furnished. Does the hon. Gentleman consider it equitable that a fairly massive subsidy to tenants should be borne entirely by landlords who may often be less well off than the tenants they are subsidising? Is he aware that many retired people derive their sole income, apart from the retirement pension, from the letting of their former homes which have become too big for them? Is he aware that the possession of this income may render them ineligible for all forms of means-tested benefit and that as a consequence these people will suffer drastic reduction in living standards due entirely to the rigidity and ideological fixation of his Department?

Mr. Freeson: I am sure that the House appreciates that speech, especially the peroration. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me details of the kind of cases to which he has referred, I should be glad to look at them. One accepts that hardships and anomalies arise from the introduction of a rent freeze, but these are not confined to the sort of cases which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We also accept—indeed I am sure that the whole House accepts—that the kind of measures which we had to take were necessary, and indeed were acceptable to the country as a whole, to counter the inflationary processes in the housing market.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there has been uncertainty in the interpretation of the rent freeze circular dealing with private rents, particularly where improvements have been carried out? Is he further aware that some rent officers are granting a rent increase and then advising the tenant to challenge it in the court if he wishes,


while others are refusing an increase and advising the landlord to challenge the decision? Can he issue some direction or advice to rent officers?

Mr. Freeson: I shall certainly be glad to consider any cases of that kind. A number of instances have been referred to us over the last few months in that respect in which we hope that we have been able to give help and advice. If any hon. Member would like to provide either the Department or me with details of cases, we shall do our best to help to sort out problems like that.

House Loan Facilities

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for a study of house loan facilities in other Western countries, with a view to the improvement of the services of building societies in Great Britain.

Mr. Freeson: The Department is already collecting information on the finance of owner-occupation in other countries, in the context of the Government's proposed housing finance review.

Mr. Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that in this country at the moment one can borrow money from a branch of a building society and lend the same money back to the same branch of the same building society at a higher rate of interest? On this point and many others in this field, will he try to take advantage of the good ideas and perhaps more so of the mistakes made in other countries?

Mr. Freeson: We shall certainly be looking as widely as possible at the experiences, both good experiences and mistakes, of other countries as well as looking at this activity in Britain. Our intention is to undertake as widespread a consideration of future policy as possible on the basis of as extensive an experience as we can before we bring forward our own proposals.

Rates (Derbyshire)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to Derbyshire in order to meet representatives of ratepayers.

Mr. Crosland: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Rost: What will the Secretary of State do to help the many ratepayers all over the country, and particularly the small traders and shopkeepers in the Sandiacre area of Derbyshire, who are faced with a double rate demand as a direct result of his reduction of the rate support grant? Is not this an example of the unacceptable face of the social contract?

Mr. Crosland: No non-domestic ratepayer was affected in any way by my decision, which concerned solely the domestic element in the rate support grant. On the more general question, we had an extraordinarily interesting debate on the whole subject last Thursday which was, in effect, an inquest on four years of bungling mismanagement and extravagance by the Tory Party. At the end 600 or so hon. Members, whether they voted for the motion or for the amendment, were voting to condemn four years of Tory incompetence.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware not only that we had to suffer the bungling ineptitude of nearly four years of a Tory Government but that in Derbyshire one of the main reasons why the rates went up by as much as 40 per cent. is that for the previous six years we had a Tory county council whose Tory chairman, now deposed by a Labour chairman, is inviting ratepayers throughout the county to see him to form ratepayers' associations to attack the high rates that are the result of the Tory Government's proposals and of his own proposals in the county?

Mr. Crosland: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says and I underline the fact that all over the country on this issue of responsibility for the rates a degree of political hypocrisy has been shown by the Tories such as I have never seen before.

National House-Building Council

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek a meeting with the NHBC.

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), met the National House-Building Council on 8th April. I will be suggesting a meeting to it in the near future.

Mr. Adley: Will the Minister take careful note of the NHBC contract, which in many cases appears to be virtually worthless? Is he aware that a small number of shabby builders hide behind this contract? Is he aware that in my constituency a five-year-old house has been derated by the local authority to £1 and declared unfit for human habitation, yet the person who lives in it and who has an NHBC contract is unable to obtain redress because the contract does not cover this issue? Will the hon. Gentleman look at this point to see whether, if young couples take out contracts like this when buying new houses, they can have some protection. Otherwise, the contracts should be done away with.

Mr. Freeson: I am not aware of that particular case, although I know of other problems in the hon. Member's constituency which are now sub judice. As for the inspection system under the NHBC guarantee, I shall be glad to discuss the extent of that system and how effective it may be. There are problems of recruitment of personnel. It is as important to look at quality control and project management techniques within the building industry as it is to look at the inspection system of the NHBC. In the end this will be a much more important field, and I am already devoting some attention to it.

Mr. George Rogers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) demonstrates and condemns the weakness of private enterprise?

Mr. Freeson: There are certainly cases which deserve to be condemned. I hope that where this happens it may be possible for local authorities, provided that it does not interfere with their primary rôle of building for rent, to undertake projects of building for sale direct, establishing standards that it will be very useful to establish in such situations.

Mr. Redmond: I should declare an interest since the National House-Building Registration Council paid for a new roof for my garage a few years ago. Is the Minister thoroughly satisfied that the council is not inhibited by the law of

libel from striking unsatisfactory builders off the register?

Mr. Freeson: I am not aware of any such inhibition, but I will take that point aboard.

Housing (West Midlands)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from local authorities in the West Midlands to his representations about the need for more houses to be built for rent.

Mr. Freeson: We are getting a good response. The Department's contacts with local authorities in the region show that they, that is the local authority, recognise the need to provide more houses for rent and are stepping up their previous building programmes. A number are also considering buying new unsold houses from developers.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Economic Development Office has forecast a further decline in the number of completions and suggests that by the end of 1977 we shall have built only 7,000 local authority houses in the whole of the West Midlands? This is a serious situation. Does not my hon. Friend think that advice should perhaps go to the local authorities about the more adventurous use of system building for example? Does not this also underline the need to make progress with the public ownership of building land?

Mr. Freeson: The forecasts are very serious indeed and I cannot underline that fact enough. The immediate position in the West Midlands on information that I have is more hopeful than it has been in the past. I could follow up my answer to the Question by saying that there is in prospect the submission of schemes which would involve, if they are all approved for tender in the coming 12 months, about 10,000 housing starts as compared with 6,500 last year.
I cannot say now that that figure will be achieved, but it is our information that there is a good hope that it will be. If so it will show an increase of 35 per cent. in the West Midlands region. As for building techniques, I am in touch with the National Building Agency to


see whether we cannot look further at system building to assist in this direction.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the Minister aware that the need for rented accommodation is at least as strong in the private sector as in the public sector? Is he aware that the recent Government restrictions have further reduced the amount of rented accommodation available? Can he tell us whether the Government believe in the need for a healthy and buoyant private-rented sector to help the housing problem?

Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the facts of the position. Generally, over a number of years now, there has been an average decline of about 100,000 lettings a year in the rented sector market. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] During the last three and a half years it has been at the rate of about 150,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That was under a Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter in greater detail, I think, during the coming week. We shall then be able to hear from Conservative Members why, under their Government, there was such a massive increase in the loss of rented housing. For the present, the way to hold the rented market is by increasing social ownership to prevent such properties going out of the market into the speculative area.

New Town and Special Area Committees

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities advising councils to extend membership of committees covering new towns and special areas to councillors representing the towns and areas in question.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I am sure this is a point local authorities will have in mind without the need for advice from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a rather disappointing reply, because in my constituency we are dealing with a new town that is not

designated under the New Towns Act? Because of the emergence of the new authorities, it means that democratically-elected representatives in that new town are prevented from taking part in discussions on the town's development.

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not a very good idea for the Government always to be giving advice to local authorities, but I think that his is a particular case and I should like to discuss it with him if he is willing.

Caradon

Mr. Tyler: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pay an official visit to the Caradon district of Cornwall.

Mr. Crosland: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Tyler: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hardship caused to ratepayers in the district, particularly to low-income households, is such that nearly 2,000 rates rebates have already been granted and a further 2,000 are awaiting processing? Does he appreciate that many more would be elegible for help if rate rebates were extended to water charges and re-extended to sewerage charges? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider his attitude to the extension of rate rebates to those two charges, which I appreciate were removed by the previous Government?

Mr. Crosland: The Caradon district was treated exceptionally, both under the variable domestic relief and under my own uniform domestic relief. I entirely concede that. The point of substance about the water and sewerage rebates, however, is that they were effectively removed by the previous Government's Water Act 1973. I hope that I made it sufficiently clear in last Thursday's debate that although to restore the rebate would require new legislation it was something I had very much in mind and was proposing to discuss with the relevant authorities.

Office Rents

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the


National Association of Pension Funds on the subject of office rents.

Mr. John Silkin: I saw a deputation from the National Association on 20th June, when it asked for a further statement of the Government's future policy on the control of rents.

Mr. McCrindle: I recognise that the Government have recently indicated some of their intentions for the long term, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the pensions of thousands of people and the life policy bonuses of millions of policyholders depend to some extent on the free operation of a commercial property market? Will he indicate his early intention to restore that freedom of operation?

Mr. Silkin: I think that in the statement I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedge-more) on Monday I indicated once again that it was not our purpose to renew the powers to control business rents when they expired in March 1976.

Mr. Horam: Did my right hon. Friend see the recent statement by the chairman of the association, in which he pointed out that the pension funds actually prefer periods of low property values, because they enable them to buy income cheaply? Is he aware that pension funds have less than 10 per cent. of their total investments in land and property?

Mr. Silkin: When one considers the question of business rents, one must consider those rents together. One cannot make differentiations between one group of investors and another.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have read all the right hon. Gentleman's earlier answers, and he has put them all negatively. Is this the right positive form: that, assuming responsibility rests with the right hon. Gentleman after 1976, a free market will be restored in business rents?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think one can prophesy what on earth will happen in March 1976, but our present intention must be good enough. It is that when the powers under the right hon. Lady's Government's Counter-Inflation Act 1973 expire, the present Government will not seek to renew them.

Passenger Trains (Punctuality)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of passenger trains arrived at their destinations on time or within five minutes of their scheduled arrival times, respectively, in 1973; and what were the comparable percentage figures in 1972 and 1971.

Mr. Carmichael: I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that British Rail's record has been improving, despite an improvement in the scheduled time in the inter-city services? Bearing in mind the substantial proposed increases in air fares between Glasgow and London, Aberdeen and London and Edinburgh and London, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the railways will in future be carrying a much bigger share of this inter-city traffic and that a further improvement in punctuality is therefore to be encouraged?

Mr. Carmichael: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Quite apart from the increase in fares, an increase in traffic on the railways can be expected because of the greatly improved service on the West Coast route between Glasgow and London. There has been a very slight deterioration in time-keeping in the past three years, because of one or two exceptional circumstances which we hope will disappear very quickly.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Railways Board is now operating one of the finest passenger services in the world and that many of us hope for a great extension of those services to all parts of the country, including Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: Miss Boothroyd. Question No. 16.

Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry that I did not rise to reply to my hon. Friend. I thought he was continuing his supplementary question. I am well aware of the improved and excellent service that British Rail provides. It is certainly among the best in the world. I use the service to Scotland quite frequently and I can recommend it to hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I share the Minister's surprise at a reasonably short supplementary question.

PERCENTAGE OF PASSENGER TRAINS





Express Trains
Other Trains





On time
Within 5 minutes of scheduled arrival time
On time
Within 5 minutes of scheduled arrival time


Year
per cent
per cent.
per cent.
per cent.


1971
…
…
68
85
83
95


1972
…
…
65
83
81
94


1973
…
…
63
81
81
93

Atmospheric Pollution (Staffordshire)

Miss Boothroyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many registered works in Wednesbury, West Bromwich and Tipton have been proceeded against by the Alkali Inspectorate for pollution offences since 1968.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): Three, Sir.

Miss Boothroyd: I acknowledge that some scheduled processes require the inspectorate's specialised skills, but is my hon. Friend aware of the growing body of informed opinion that believes that registered works should be responsible and accountable to the local authorities, and through them to the general public? Does he agree with me that the inspectorate's policy on industrial secrecy is outdated and that certain standards for the control of pollution should be set, not in line with what the manufacturer can get away with but more in line with what the general public living in industrial areas, who are really the sufferers, can be expected to tolerate?

Mr. Howell: I cannot agree with those propositions. We debated them very fully on Second Reading of the Control of Pollution Bill and in the Committee stage, which has just been completed. The Alkali Inspectorate has during 100 years gathered an enormous amount of technological information, which could not possibly be passed on to every local authority. We are doing our best in the Bill to meet my hon. Friend's important point about trade secrecy and to ensure that there is the fullest possible accountability and that every local authority is entitled to have access to the information.

Following are the details:

The following information has been provided by the Railways Board:

Mr. John Ellis: Is it not true that the Alkali Inspectorate will be wound up under the health and safety at work regulations? If not, it should be. How will my hon. Friend co-ordinate environmental considerations with safety at work? I am talking about the Factory Inspectorate. There is an overlap here, and we do not want to go on in the tangled way that has been followed in the past.

Mr. Howell: It is not true that the Alkali Inspectorate is to be wound up. In fact, more progress has been made in technological improvement in dealing with pollution through the "best practicable means" approach of the inspectorate than in any other country in the world. Many of its functions will now be transferred to another department, but it is certainly not to be wound up.

Sewerage Charges

Dr. Hampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now announce the date from which relief from sewerage charges will be granted to the owners of septic tanks.

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the date from which relief will be given to those paying sewerage charges who lack main drainage facilities

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he can now say from which date he hopes to make effective the new arrangements under which sewerage charges will no longer be levied on householders for whom a main sewerage service is not provided.

Mr. Banks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made designed to ensure that 1975 rate demands will differentiate the sewerage rate for those dwellings with and without main sewerage connections.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend has asked the National Water Council for urgent advice on the problem generally. Meanwhile water authorities, in collaboration with the responsible local authorities, are trying to identify the properties affected.

Dr. Hampson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that thousands and thousands of ratepayers—acknowledge the difficulty of finding the information that he has mentioned—believe that his Department is back-sliding on a commitment by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Widness (Mr. Oakes)? When he finds the information, what does the Minister intend to do? Does he not think it only fair that those who have paid their sewerage rate this year should have their septic tanks emptied free of charge by the local authority and that the cost should be borne if necessary by the water authority?

Mr. Howell: This problem would not have arisen at all had it not been for the obnoxious Act which the previous administration passed, which took water away from democratic control and created nine nationalised industries which are totally independent of Government control. We have identified the problem. I have already announced that we intend to deal with it in time for next year's water charges. That, I think, is speedy action.

Dr. Hampson: What about this year?

Mr. George Cunningham: If people with septic tanks will not pay part of the sewerage charge, will the Minister assure us that the valuation placed upon their premises will not be abated because they have septic tanks?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend mentions an interesting point which illustrates one of the complexities of the matter—namely, that even if householders have septic tanks the deposits from the tanks must be treated by the community and that they cannot, therefore, be totally

exempted from rating. We are considering these difficult matters and we intend to produce proposals in time for next year's charges.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister accept that there is nothing in the Water Act to prevent his making the change which my right hon. and hon. Friends are suggesting? When the hon. Gentleman lays stress on administrative difficulties, let him bear in mind the attitude of the people who attend the rate protest meetings, to which my hon. Friends and I are constantly invited. For the Secretary of State to talk about hypocrisy in this context is absurd. Does the Minister accept that the people at rate protest meetings do not understand the Government's point about administrative difficulties? The hon. Gentleman is dealing with whole villages, which as everybody knows do not have main sewerage facilities. To identify the villages cannot be a major administrative problem.

Mr. Howell: I think that all the protesters now realise that the present Opposition, when they passed the Water Act, did not understand what they were doing, in spite of the fact that we warned them time and again with the support of Liberal Members. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to act on certain information. We do not have authority in law to take those steps, but we intend to deal with the matter as soon as we can.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the electors of Mid-Oxfordshire might have difficulty in understanding the problem, the electors of the Meriden constituency have suffered as extensively as anyone and that they appreciate that the responsibility for sewerage lies exclusively with Conservative Members?

Mr. Howell: Yes indeed. That is why my hon. Friend is here and will be here with an increased majority following the next election.

Mr. Banks: Is the Minister aware that many people are concerned that sewerage rates are levied not by an elected authority but by appointed persons? Will he undertake to look into the matter?

Mr. Howell: Not only do I understand the position but I voted against the Water Act.

Mr. Kimball: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend's argument that these properties cannot be identified does not carry weight? The rating and valuation authorities can identify the properties concerned. What consultations is he having with those authorities to speed up identification?

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend and I have met the water authorities. Within two weeks they have corresponded with every local authority. Some authorities say that they can identify these properties but the majority say that they cannot. What we are certain about is that the properties must all be identified in time for next year's water charges.

Mr. Hordern: The Minister must recognise that the practice of placing a sewerage charge on households without sewers is an absurdity.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: You did it.

Mr. Hordern: The Minister must realise that no amount of talk on administrative difficulty will suffice. It is essential to get the situation right and to do so now.

Mr. Howell: We recognise and agree with that. The unfortunate thing is that the Water Act was rushed through the House. The authority was set up and it had only three months in which to recruit staff to take over the work and get the system going. That undue haste to change the democratic structure of the water industry is the cause of all our difficulties.

Northamptonshire

Mr. Fry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to revise the recommendations of the South-East Study with respect to Northamptonshire.

Mr. John Silkin: No, Sir. The Strategic Plan is kept under continuous review, but I see no reason at present to revise its proposals as they affect Northamptonshire.

Mr. Fry: Does the Minister appreciate that the existing strain on Northamptonshire ratepayers will continue to exist if these plans are pushed through? Does he realise that the expansion of his plans is resented by many of the residents of

the county? Does he further realise that demands are now being made that there should be a severe cutback in the plans for expansion which are despoiling the county aesthetically and financially?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman should understand first that I very much appreciate the position of areas like Northamptonshire with expanding populations. That is one of the factors that must be looked at in the current discussion on the distribution of rate support grant, and we are asking for it to be taken into account. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is a problem that faces all new towns. Basically, new towns must take population from a large conurbation. From Stevenage to the present day the early history of new towns is that some resentment is created when a new population comes in. However, I am sure that we have the right policy and I am sure that the population of Northampton will understand that s well.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is having regard to the increased contribution to be made to the county rate by the Northamptonshire Development Corporation. The implication of that is whether a contribution is involved from central Government funds to the Northamptonshire Development Corporation.

Mr. Silkin: The position is that a development corporation may make a contribution both to the county council and to the district council. We want to preserve as much as we can the position of our new towns. Of course we shall do our best to see that that position is preserved to the best of our ability, but the whole thing must fit into the general economic situation. The hon. Gentleman is as aware of that as I am.

M20 Motorway

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce his decision on the alignment of the M20 Motorway following the public inquiry.

Mr. Carmichael: We hope to announce a decision on the two M20 schemes between Maidstone and Folkestone by the end of the year.

Mr. Costain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disappointing answer? Does he appreciate that so many routes are being covered by the inquiry by the inspectorate that many houses are unsaleable until he makes up his mind? What is the reason for the delay?

Mr. Carmichael: I know that the hon. Gentleman paid a great deal of attention to the inquiry and that he attended many of the inquiry's sittings. I would have thought that he would have been aware of the problems. There were over 400 objections received, and 24 alternative routes and 1,400 counter-proposals and amendments to those routes. We are doing as much as we can but there is a lengthy inspectorate report and we must be sure that we have the right answer. This is an important route some 28½ miles in length. We must be sure that when we come to a conclusion it will be one that will be most suitable for the local people, for Kent and for the rest of the country.

Development Corporations (Appointments)

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what part political considerations play in making appointments to the boards of development corporations; and whether there has been any change in practice in this regard.

Mr. John Silkin: Political considerations cannot be eliminated but my overriding aim is to appoint an effective team. I do not know the practice of my predecessors.

Mr. Dodsworth: I thank the Minister for his reply. An invitation was issued to a distinguished and, I believe, suitable person to serve on Stevenage Development Corporation. That invitation was withdrawn after 28th February in circumstances of embarrassment to all concerned. Will the Minister investigate the suitability of the alternative nomination?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that we ought to embarrass the gentleman about whom the hon. Gentleman is talking by mentioning him by name, but I will explain the position. It is now 28 years since the designation of Stevenage, and Labour policy is to give greater and

greater democracy to the new towns. We want more local goverment participation so that eventually, as was promised originally, the local authorities will be running the new towns. The problem that was put to me—I must tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that this was so—was whether I should appoint a person to the board who was not a member of the district council or whether, instead, in that one available vacancy, I should appoint someone from the district council. I chose someone from the district council, and I think I was right.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: If my right hon. Friend wants to learn something of the practice of his predecessor, will he come to Preston New Town, where we will show him so much that it will make his hair curl even more than it does now?

Mr. Silkin: If that is a genuine invitation and not a rhetorical one, I shall be delighted to accept.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to conclude his considerations of local government finance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: As I told the House last Thursday, I am setting up an independent committee of inquiry into local government finance. I shall ask the committee to report as soon as possible and at the latest before the end of 1975. Meanwhile I am reviewing, in consultation with the local authority associations, the basis of the distribution of rate support grant for the 1975–76 grant settlement.

Mr. Freud: Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider consulting his right hon. Friend about making teachers' salaries a charge on central rather than local government?

Mr. Crosland: This matter has been much discussed and argued about for 20 years. Obviously one of the basic issues which the committee of inquiry will have to consider is whether a specific chunk of what is currently local expenditure should or should not be charged to the responsibility of the central Government.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the seriousness of the problems facing ratepayers,


cannot the right hon. Gentleman bring forward his review? So serious is the situation of many ratepayers that they will not be able to afford to wait until the inquiry's results are published.

Mr. Crosland: I should like the committee to report as soon as is possible and practicable, but we must face the fact that we have been discussing a major reform of local government finance for the last 20 years and more. The hon. Gentleman himself has made many speeches about it, including the proposal to transfer the cost of education to the central Government. The Conservative Government issued a White Paper in 1971 and a consultation paper in 1973. All those things produced negative results. We do not have a consensus on what should be done, and more important even than speed is to get a result from the committee which I hope will satisfy everyone that we have the best system possible.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if many of the Opposition Members who now clamour for the reform of local government finance had done something about it three or four years ago, we might now have been discussing the report and be nearer being able to do something instead of still being in the talking stage?

Mr. Crosland: I agree. This clamour once again underlines the hypocrisy of the Opposition.

Mr. Churchill: In view of the clearly-expressed will of Parliament in the vote last week for a measure of interim relief for those ratepayers who are faced with massive increases as a result of the Secretary of State's Rate Support Grant Order, what intention has he to bring a proposal before Parliament for implementing the will of the House before we go into recess?

Mr. Crosland: I have referred already to what was, in effect, the inquest we had last week on four years of Tory inactivity on this matter. I repeat what I said at the end of that bizarre debate: that although I can give no commitment I shall examine every proposal made in the debate as seriously and as closely as I can.

Ozone Levels

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has considered the report published in Nature, at page 641, of the changes in ozone levels in the atmosphere since 1965 and its implications in relation to climatic changes and exposure to solar radiation; and whether he will consider investigations into the contribution made to this problem by atmospheric pollution.

Mr. Denis Howell: Yes, Sir. The Meteorological Office is actively pursuing a research programme on the effects of pollutants on stratospheric ozone levels and climate, the preliminary results of which are reassuring.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the decline of ozone levels continued at the present rate human life on this planet would become totally impossible? Is he further aware that since I tabled this Question further reports have appeared in Nature, which is a journal notoriously scornful of ecological alarm, suggesting that the fragility of the ozone layer is a matter of serious concern and expressing anxiety about the slow build-up of ozone-destructive agents in the atmosphere? Will my hon. Friend indicate the level of Government investigation into this subject, which is one of potentially absolutely disastrous concern not only to the British people but to the entire human race?

Mr. Howell: If those considerations were entirely accurate I would be concerned, but I have myself studied the report in Nature which presents the data on falling ozone levels from a single point in the Southern Hemisphere. I am advised that further observations by scientists of the Meteorological Office and elsewhere indicate that total ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere are generally rising. There is little doubt that these fluctuations are caused by natural causes.

Mr. Grylls: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to investigate the possible greater use of solar water heating equipment which can now be got for about 600 dollars in America? Will he consult the building trade with a view to


securing greater use of solar water heating to conserve ordinary fuels?

Mr. Howell: Research into that matter is already going on, and I am happy to consider any further suggestions put by any hon. Member.

M69 and Associated Roads

Mr. Nigel Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to authorise a start to be made on the construction of the M69 (Leicester-Coventry motorway) and the M69 /A47 link road; if he will ensure that the public are consulted on the various alternative routes for the link road before a final choice is made and that other measures needed to deal with traffic problems on the A46 will not be held up pending construction of the M69; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Carmichael: Subject to the continuing availability of funds, it is hoped that work will start on the M69 in the first half of 1975. The normal arrangements for consulting the public during the early stages of planning will apply to the link road. Traffic management and other measures to deal with traffic problems on that part of the A46 which will be relieved by the M69 will not be delayed.

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's statement. I am sorry that he did not let me know by letter a little earlier, since he promised me that if he had information he would—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very interesting but it is not a Question.

Mr. Lawson: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Can the Under-Secretary of State also give an assurance that measures that are needed because of dangers to pedestrians on the A46, such as the footbridge required at Narborough, will not be held up pending construction of the M69?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the elaborate procedures now used to establish the attitude of the public, whose views on all these matters are taken fully into consideration when the plans are displayed. I am sure that the question which the hon. Gentleman has raised with me now, and which I understand he has also raised in

writing with the Department, will be looked at when we come to designate ultimately the route of the M69.

Domestic Rate Relief

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, as part of his review of local government finance, he will consider restoring the domestic rate relief in non-metropolitan areas to the level proposed by the last Government.

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the cost of restoring the cuts that he made to certain areas in the domestic element of the rate support grant for 1974–75.

Mr. Crosland: I made no cut in the total domestic rate relief proposed by the last administration. I did, however, redistribute some part of it in favour of the inner cities and against other areas. If I were simply to reverse the redistribution the cost would of course be zero since gains and losses would cancel out. If I were to make good the losses to the rural areas while maintaining the gains to the inner cities, the additional cost would be some £70 million. I do not believe that it would be right or just to proceed in this way. But I am considering the many points on the rates situation raised in the debate last Thursday.

Mr. Spicer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever the rights and wrongs of the case—and it has been coming through during Question Time today that he feels differently from us—in such constituencies as mine there is now a real danger of a mass refusal to pay the second rate? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Crosland: I am distressed to hear the hon. Member say that there is a mass disposition to refuse to pay the rates without adding that he has urged ratepayers not to take that action.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposition of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) is grossly discriminatory against metropolitan boroughs, some of which have also suffered?

Mr. Crosland: I agree with my hon. Friend that most of the troubles of the


hon. Member are matters for complaint to his right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Allason: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he cannot blame the last Government because he has taken £70 million from the country districts and given it to the metropolitan districts? Will he now, as a good parliamentarian, accept the will of Parliament and restore that £70 million forthwith to the rural areas in time for the second rate demand in the autumn?

Mr. Crosland: The House knows that I have never made the slightest effort to disclaim responsibility for the change I made in the distribution of the domestic element. What I have consistently said is that the total national increase in rates was not my responsibility but was the responsibility of my predecessors. As for the £70 million, if I had that sum I cannot believe that that would be the best way to distribute it. I repeat, without any commitment, that I have pledged myself to examine all the practical suggestions made in last Thursday's debate.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL ACTION)

Sir G. Howe: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the current industrial action in the National Health Service.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Industrial action is being undertaken at some hospitals by works staff, a small group of medical physics technicians and nurses.
Action by the works staff is connected with the negotiation of salaries for new senior management posts in the reorganised National Health Service. The Staff Side is considering a revised offer made in the Whitley Council yesterday. In view of this I hope that the staff concerned will carry out their full duties.
The technicians' action concerns an arbitration award of 1972 which could not be implemented under the previous Government's statutory pay policy. The management side has made offers for implementation after the ending of statutory controls but agreement has not yet

been reached. I am keeping in touch with health authorities as regards the maintenance of essential treatment for patients.
I announced on 23rd May that Lord Halsbury had agreed to take the chair of an independent inquiry into the salaries of nurses and midwives. This was welcomed by the Staff Side of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, but one union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, maintained its view that nurses should receive an interim payment before the inquiry had reported. It advised me on 21st June that it had imposed certain restrictions on the work of its members and that these would be extended by 1st July.
Having appointed an independent inquiry, I was, and am, unable to agree to make interim payments. But I spoke to Lord Halsbury, and to remove any doubts about the timing of his report I issued a statement on 28th June. In this I indicated that Lord Halsbury had told me that he would be in a position to give me a firm date for his report at the end of July. He was of the view that his report would be completed by the late summer, and I have no reason to believe that it will be delayed beyond then. But I made it known that, should it appear in a month's time that the report was likely to be seriously delayed, I would then consider asking Lord Halsbury to make an interim recommendation.
On 29th June COHSE announced that it had called off its industrial action except for a refusal to undertake non-nursing duties, to work with agency nurses or to work with private patients. The position is not yet clear, and action is sporadic and localised.
Some nursing and other staff, including some who are members of COHSE and others who are members of the National Union of Public Employees, are threatening to refuse to work with agency nurses or to provide services for private patients. At Charing Cross Hospital certain staff threatened to withdraw their services, including domestic, catering and linen services, unless the private wing was closed by the end of June. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] To safeguard the patients the area health authority proposed that patients receiving treatment in the private wing should be transferred


to general ward beds. In view of subsequent representations from the consultants responsible for the treatment of private patients on clinical grounds the authority is having further discussions with the unions and is meeting consultant staff this afternoon.
In all these discussions the concern of the area health authority has been, and will be, to safeguard the interests of patients as a whole. As the House is aware, it is the policy of the Government, as set out in our manifesto, and reiterated since, to phase out private practice from the hospital service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] While, therefore, I can understand the feelings of the staff, I cannot condone the action they are taking. We believe that this issue must be dealt with by the Government of the day and in an orderly way.
Immediately upon taking office we established a joint working party with the medical profession to deal with this and other aspects of the consultants' work in an effort to reach agreement, and I hope to be in a position to present our proposals early next year. I ask all those who work in the National Health Service not to damage these negotiations or the interests of patients by action of this kind.

Sir G. Howe: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the whole House will endorse her hope that normal working will be resumed as promptly as possible? Can she confirm that the decision of the area health authority to close the private ward at Charing Cross Hospital was taken after consultation with her? Can she tell the House whether either she or the hospital has the right to authorise the transfer of private patients to different accommodation in that way, interfering directly with relationships between doctors and patients?
Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why it has taken her 11 days to answer a letter on this subject from the Secretary of the British Medical Association? Is she aware that action being taken as a result of the decisions she has described, relating to agency nurses, for example, at the Maudsley Hospital, is already gravely affecting the availability of beds and the standard of nursing there for seriously ill patients? Is she further aware that the great mass of people in the country are deeply angry that patients

should be treated as pawns in what is essentially a political matter? Will she demonstrate that this action is deeply deplored by the whole of the House.

Mrs. Castle: The position is that the area health authority informed us of the situation, that discussions did take place, and that the action taken was that recommended by the authority as seeming to it to be the only way in which it could preserve the interests of all the patients concerned. We agreed that it should be entitled to follow its judgment in handling this difficult, tricky situation. May I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is another meeting taking place this afternoon between the consultants and the authority, following further discussions with the union. It is a delicate situation, and I suggest that we do not say anything in the House this afternoon to make it impossible for a decision to be reached which will safeguard the interests of all the patients in the hospital.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that almost every hon. Member on the Government benches will treat with the utmost contempt the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in view of his Government's record in the treatment of hospital staff? We shall not shed many tears about the refusal of hospital nurses to work with agency nurses, nor about their decision to treat private patients in the same way as they treat NHS patients. Will my right hon. Friend, nevertheless, reconsider her decision not to give an interim payment to the nurses, when it is clear beyond peradventure that they will get a substantial increase from Lord Halsbury? If an interim increase will stop this kind of industrial practice, the sooner she makes that interim payment the better.

Mrs. Castle: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I repeat that I and all my colleagues in the Government are as strongly opposed as he is to the continuation of private practice in the hospital service, but we also believe that we must phase out private practice in an orderly way which will safeguard the interests of the health service as a whole and of the NHS patients.
In reply to my hon. Friend's question about the award of an interim increase


to the nurses, I remind my hon. Friend that COHSE has asked for the industrial action to be called off in the light of my undertaking that by the end of this month Lord Halsbury will be in a position to give us a final date.

Dr. Winstanley: As one who believes that many patients receive better treatment and better nursing care in general wards than they do in private accommodation, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she is aware that in areas where the NHS flourishes—there are many—and in which the doctor-patient relationship is adequate, the hospitals are adequately staffed and the waiting lists are short, private practice is virtually non-existent? Does not the right hon. Lady agree, therefore, that those who wish to see an end to private practice would be best advised to direct their efforts towards improving standards in the NHS?

Mrs. Castle: We want to do both. It is obvious that the real way to abolish waiting lists is to increase the staff in the service and improve and extend the facilities. It is equally obvious that the principle of priority being only on medical grounds can be overridden in the NHS and that less urgent medical cases can buy their way to the top of the list. That is an increasing affront to our society. It is an increasing affront to the patients and the staff of the NHS. Those who want an orderly transfer and who like to talk about constitutional situations should realise that the best way of containing this growing sense of outrage is for the whole House to pledge itself to phase private practice out of the NHS.

Mr. Orbach: I agree with my right hon. Friend that nothing should be said to upset the delicate negotiations that are going on this afternoon, but has she seen the illuminating statement made by the Secretary of the British Medical Association this morning to the effect that private practice brings many patients to this country from abroad, which has the effect of helping our balance of trade position? Will she convey that information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that he may collect some of the taxes which are due to the country from professors and consultants in the NHS?

Mrs. Castle: One of the first steps I took was to increase the cost of pay beds in the NHS so as to recoup at any

rate some of the advantages that private practice presently gains from operating within the context of the NHS.

Mr. Grylls: Does not the Secretary of State agree that it is rather a shame—to put it mildly—that either British people or foreigners who come to London for medical treatment and are prepared to pay the full price for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "And over."]—should be evicted by people like female Red Guards under their beds? Is not London internationally famous for having the best doctors and best nurses in the world, and is that not of great benefit to all British people?

Mrs. Castle: No one is suggesting that private practice should be outlawed by an Act of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, the trouble is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are so blinded by party prejudice that they will not even listen to what is said. I said that our policy is to phase private practice out of the hopsitals of the NHS. The issue before us is whether the facilities of the NHS, which are supposed to be available only on the principle of medical priority, should contain facilities that are available on the different principle of ability to pay. We say that those two principles are incompatible in the NHS.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand she has taken, but does she realise that there is still no standardised accounting system for private practice in the NHS? Does she accept that, while we recognise the commitment which the party has made, we should in future ask the staff how they feel about the admission of private patients, because they have never before been asked?

Mrs. Castle: The step I announced of increasing the cost of pay beds was an interim measure. We are looking more fundamentally at the financial questions raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the account that she has given contains one inaccuracy? When her Department was first approached for advice on the subject, the advice it gave was that private patients should as a compromise be transferred from private wards to public wards at a reduced price.

Mrs. Castle: I have here the letter concerned from the area health authority


from which the suggestion for compromise came. The area health authority believed that it would help in containing an increasingly tricky situation which seemed to endanger its capacity to meet the interests of its patients as a whole. All we told the area health authority was that if in its view this was the best way of safeguarding the interests of the patients, the authority should go ahead in the light of its judgment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a half Supply Day, and many more Members want to speak than can possibly be called. We also have a statement and an application for a Ten Minute Rule Bill. I suspect that this is not the last we shall hear on this subject, and I think that we should move on.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (SUPPLY)

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the supply of parliamentary papers.
Members are aware that since 20th June there has been difficulty regarding the supply of parliamentary papers. This has resulted from industrial action involving composing staff at the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press.
Further industrial action was introduced this morning in seven of HMSO's eight printing works by members of the National Graphical Association. Although no formal notice of any action has been received by HMSO from the association at national level, it is understood to be in support of the union's claim for improved pay and conditions which is currently under review.
Among the work affected is the supply of Government papers to Parliament. Copies of the documents essential to the business of the House will continue to be made available, in limited quantities, in one form or another.
Every effort is being made to resolve the dispute, which is, of course, taking place against the background of recent difficulties in the newspaper and general printing industry, particularly in London.

Mr. Robert Carr: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement. It is a serious situation for Parliament if we are to carry out our function properly. Will he be a little more specific about the action which the Government are taking to try to resolve the situation? In view of the serious effect on the work of Parliament, will he report to the House again tomorrow about the latest developments?
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to consult the Leader of the House about arrangements for the future business of the House, bearing in mind that it is impossible—I use the word after thought—to conduct the Report stages of important Bills like the Finance Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill unless adequate supplies of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings are available not only to hon. Members but also to those outside the House who are most closely affected by the legislation. Until that has been done it really is not possible to know what amendments one needs to table for the Report stage. Will the hon. Gentleman please consult the Leader of the House and ask him to take this into account in planning future parliamentary business?

Mr. Sheldon: In reply to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, negotiations are taking place with the unions concerned and I can make no further comment on that aspect at the present time, but if there is any substantial change I shall of course seriously consider coming to the House with a further statement.
Concerning transcripts of reports of Committee stages which are required for the tabling of amendments on Report, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Stationery Office has done its utmost to provide transcripts day by day, though of a kind that cause very serious inconvenience to Officers of this House and others concerned, and I would like to pay particular tribute to the Stationery Office. I agree that this has been done on a scale rather more limited than might be thought desirable for the tabling of amendments, to the later stages of the Finance Bill in particular. I am at present in consultation, exploring methods by which transcripts may be made available to certain interested


parties on a much wider scale than has been done up to now.

Mr. Carr: I would like to add my tribute to that of the hon. Gentleman to the really remarkable effort that has been made to get minimal papers required by hon. Members for their work in Committee stages. We appreciate this. Without that remarkable effort, we would have been brought to a standstill. But I really must press the hon. Gentleman on the other point. It really is not possible to do our proper democratic functions on Report unless adequate supplies of easily-readable reports of the Committee proceedings are available, not only in this House but outside. Quite apart from anything else, these transcripts simply are not in a fit state or of appropriate bulk to send to people outside, to get their replies in time for the tabling of amendments.

Mr. Sheldon: I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that wherever possible amended transcripts in proper form will be made available to certain interested parties. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that we have had to make special arrangements whereby in one form or another the vast amount of printing that is produced for this House at a time when the House is under greatest pressure, such as now towards the end of a Session, has been produced. Nobody can argue that this can be done in precisely the same manner as heretofore.
This has happened before. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman was in this House when all kinds of documents were not available to the House. This has happened before on a scale much greater than is happening now. I must insist on this. All we are saying is that we are making arrangements to ensure that certain copies of reports of what took place in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be made available to those outside the House who wish to have them. We are at present exploring how this can best be done.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the average pay of those involved in this strike and whether it is more or less than the average pay of Members of Parliament? Will he also bear in mind what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

Carshalton (Mr. Carr) about the sheer impossibility—I put it that high—of having the Report stage of the Finance Bill without these papers in time for discussions with interested bodies outside the House? Major changes and concessions were made in that Bill as late as 3 o'clock this morning, but I am given to understand today that the papers will not be with us for another two days. It is impossible to hold the consultations we need. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we shall have seriously to consider the possibility of bringing forward the Summer Recess, delaying the passage of the Finance Bill until after the recess and coming back in September to deal with it? [Interruption.] The Patronage Secretary will have to get used to the position I have been in in holding the balance of power in the Finance Bill Committee. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the House could calm down a little. We have quite a lot to do today.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore take account of the sheer difficulties and the impossibility of considering the Bill in the way he proposes, and take very seriously my point about delaying it until the autumn?

Mr. Sheldon: The House will be aware of the threats of the hon. Gentleman. It seems that the vote he possesses in Committee or has possessed up to now, has gone to his head rather excessively. In reply to his question as to the earnings of the people concerned, the average earnings of the staff at all HMSO presses, including overtime, amount to £48·50 per week. At St. Stephen's the amount is considerably higher, the average there being about £63 per week. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will take note of that. Concerning the need to obtain papers, these will be available in the Vote Office, and the hon. Gentleman and others should not be inconvenienced by this, other than perhaps by an extra day, although we are trying to improve on even that.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the difficulties he has outlined are the reason why I and other members of my group did not receive notice of the Scottish Grand Committee and the Standing Committee


on which I served this morning, and will he give priority to this? There is not a lot of printing involved in the issue of notices. If he can undertake to do so, will he ensure that our particular usual channel is one to which notices will he sent?

Mr. Sheldon: I have no information on that point. There are all kinds of reasons why the notice may not have been sent, but I will take the matter up with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Torney: In view of the fact that the temperature in the field of industrial relations is now much better as we have got rid of confrontation, would my hon. Friend take this matter up with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to see whether he would be prepared to intervene in this dispute which is causing so much inconvenience to the House?

Mr. Sheldon: I must repeat that this dispute must be seen against the background of the difficulties of the printing industry, particularly in the London area, and it must be considered against that background. My hon. Friend's suggestion is obviously helpful and I will look into it.

Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us feel that he has been rather complacent this afternoon? Although we appreciate that this kind of situation has arisen before, when he talks of transcripts and one gets a

document the size of the one in my hand it really is not good enough. Will he now initiate discussions with the Leader of the House and others to see whether some alternative arrangements for printing essential parliamentary papers can be considered?

Mr. Sheldon: We are dealing with the Parliamentary Press employing 600 people who are concerned in the production of parliamentary papers for this House, and no other arrangements of any kind are going to match those that have obtained up to now. Concerning similar difficulties in the past, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that in the last Session of Parliament, within a two-year period, there were delays in the normal delivery time for some papers on 120 occasions, 26 of these being due to industrial action. This is a problem that is not new either to the House or to the printing industry, particularly the printing industry in the London area.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order No. 73A (Statutory Instruments).

That the draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.

That the draft National Radiological Protection Board (Extension of Functions) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Question agreed to.

CROWD CONTROL BILL

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a code of practice for securing the safety of persons attending pop concerts and other entertainments.
The Bill follows upon the death of Bernadette Whelan on 30th May. Bernadette, aged 14, died after a pop concert at the White City Stadium. At her inquest the Hammersmith Coroner called for a code of practice. Nothing has happened since that announcement and, therefore, I seek leave to introduce this Bill both as a result of that fact and out of personal concern, because my own fourteen-year-old daughter attended the concert. I take this step with the full support and co-operation of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) in whose constituency Bernadette used to live.
The situation at such concerts is one of grave concern to all parents. When we are asked by our children whether they can go to pop concerts or festivals, we should be able to say to them, "Yes, go and enjoy yourself" and then have no further worry. Instead, as a result of this festival and previous concerts of this kind, we are only happy when they return home in safety. At the concert in question, the children, comprising youngsters aged between 12 and 18, were given tickets on a rota system. If the tickets were one colour they were in the arena and had no seats; if the tickets were of a different colour, the children were seated in safety. My daughter was one of those fortunate enough to be seated. Had she not been seated, she would have been among the first to arrive and no doubt would have been at the point where the stampede occurred.
This terrifying teenage hysteria caused a stampede and resulted in the death of Bernadette Whelan, who presumably fell under the feet of other children. The scene was described in The Times, and perhaps I may quote from that newspaper, to show that action is required urgently:
To a background of the song 'The Wombles of Wimbledon', girls could be heard shouting 'Please get me out', as loudspeaker

appeals were made for the crowd to stop pushing forward … 10,000 youngsters were crowded up against a barrier in the centre of the arena, with no means of getting out. It was a highly charged situation in an atmosphere of hysteria and fainting as tension built up to David Cassidy's appearance. St. John Ambulance workers dealt with 500 casualties, and 30 people were taken to hospital.
A disc jockey, Mr. Tony Blackburn, said that he had given warning to the audience by saying:
There are people lying down in front here, and if you move forward any more you will kill somebody.
Strangely enough, the organisers of the concert apparently not only complied with Greater London Council regulations but had even more stewards than the regulations required. It is time for this House to say that the regulations must be changed, and that there must be a code of safety to be complied with by all those concerned in providing entertainment for young people. The code would be a fairly simple one. What basically is needed is somewhere for the audience to sit—for where there is seating, there is unlikely to be a hysterical surge forward Secondly, I believe that there should be spaces between the blocks of seats and, thirdly, adequate stewarding.
The idea of a code suggested by the coroner is not new. There was a report and a code of practice produced by the Conservative Government as a result of pop festivals which took place at that time. Those pop festivals, for financial reasons, have almost died out, and have been replaced by the sort of one-night stand represented by the tragic evening at the White City.
The code would provide a means by which local authorities could require the promoters and organisers of pop concerts to comply with it provisions, and, if they did not do so, they would not get a licence, nor would any insurers be prepared to provide cover for anybody who did not comply with the minimum requirements laid down in the code.
It is the age group most at risk which attends these concerts. Nobody is trying to prevent this type of recreation. In the city of Leicester it is the 13-to-17 year-old group which needs looking after. The older ones go to discotheques and other facilities and they earn enough to pay for them. I am concerned about the youngsters who, in the main, do not find


a place in a youth club or attend discotheques and who are entitled to go to pop festivals and concerts and to be there in safety. Their parents should not have to worry about saying "Yes" when their children request permission to attend pop concerts.
Finally—and incidentally, Mr. Speaker, well within the Ten Minutes Rule—may I simply quote the words of the Hammersmith coroner, which clearly called for the type of action which this modest Bill embodies. The coroner said:
If you intentionally create an excited crowd, one has got to accept that the control you have over them must be experienced and must be effective.
At the White City the control was neither experienced nor effective. There is no code of conduct or practice which is designed to protect young people against the sort of hysteria that led to the tragic death of Bernadette Whelan. It is for this purpose that I seek leave to introduce a Bill which would establish such a code.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Leslie Huck-field, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. Dan Jones, Mr. Clement Freud, Sir Nigel Fisher.

CROWD CONTROL

Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a code of practice for securing the safety of persons attending pop concerts and other entertainments: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 12th July, and to be printed [Bill 85.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[12th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

EDUCATION

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas), I wish to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
As I have already indicated, many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to speak in the debate, and once again I appeal for brevity.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move.
That this House, in view of the widespread disquiet amongst parents about the standards of conduct and learning in certain schools, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to modify its educational policies so as to preserve the rights of parents guaranteed by Section 76 of the Education Act 1944, and to raise academic standards in schools; and, in particular, to withdraw Circular 474 which seeks to impose a system of universal comprehensive schools without regard to educational considerations, parental wishes or local needs and conditions.
One thing we are all agreed about in every part of the House is the importance of education for the future of the nation. Anybody who speaks on this subject, whether from the Front Benches or the back benches, bears a heavy responsibility to measure his words carefully. We must all think of the effects which anything we say could have on those who are struggling with grave problems in our schools.
All of us, however different the means we may propose, want to make things better in the educational system rather than worse. But to speak responsibly is not to be mealy mouthed. The Government have their own educational philosophy. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has spoken out in a forthright manner on a number of occasions. We on the Opposition benches have equally clear though different views. It is our right and duty to proclaim them here this afternoon.
This debate takes place in a setting where parents all over the country are increasingly anxious about what is going on in certain of our schools. That is recognised in the opening words of the Opposition motion. That is not to say that our education system is bad or collapsing, nor is it denying that the majority of our schools are good and are served by dedicated men and women.
But we cannot ignore the views of parents. If the educational system is to prosper it must have the sure support of public opinion. Every Member of this House knows from his correspondence that parents are worried about two things in particular—the maintenance of discipline in the schools and the standards of learning which are achieved, particularly in the case of literacy and mathematics in our primary schools.
The Opposition charge against the Government today is that instead of concentrating on the solution of these practical problems they are diverting the energy and the attention of all who are concerned with education, and driving us back into the sterile battle between grammar and comprehensive schools, by seeking to impose a system of universal comprehensive schools which can only exacerbate these problems instead of ameliorating them.
If we want higher standards in schools, the first thing we need is a higher standard of teachers. One will achieve that only if teachers are paid reasonable salaries. What has happened over the past decade—this is not a party point since it has been going on under the last two Governments—has meant that teachers are in danger of becoming a depressed profession. They are being overtaken by manual and white-collar workers.
There is only one figure which is needed to establish that point, the increase in the earnings of women. Women, after all, form a very high proportion of our teaching force. If one looks at the figures between September 1968 and April 1973, the median earnings of manual workers went up by 75 per cent., that of non-manual workers went up by 58·2 per cent., and that of teachers by only 38·7 per cent.
I know from my experience as a Minister that it is extremely difficult to obtain extra money for education. But my right hon. Friend the Member for

Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) succeeded in many a battle with the Treasury and I hope that the Secretary of State achieves the same success. He has a record as a man of courage and forthrightness. He must accept, along with his other duties, that he is in fact the titular head of the teaching profession. Teachers in this country expect him to fight their battles for them. If he does that he will have the support of the Opposition.
We welcome Lord Houghton's appointment to inquire into teachers' pay and conditions. I should like to say this to the noble Lord: if we are to attract the right people into the teaching profession, it is extremely important that there should be a proper salaries structure offering adequate rewards in the higher branches of the profession. We should move rapidly towards an all-graduate teaching profession. I am very glad that the Secretary of State has taken over the ideas of his predecessor on the diploma of higher education. He will have our support if he continues to build on those ideas.
I should like to put forward some further ideas as to how we could raise standards in our schools. One of the deleterious effects of the abolition of the 11-plus examination has been the lack of any national objective standard or test so that we can judge what is happening in our primary schools. It is true that Her Majesty's inspectors apply tests, but they are local tests and I do not think they are enough. I hope the Minister will urgently consider introducing a national standard to which all schools would be expected to conform.
Secondly, I hope he will look at the curriculum in colleges of education. Potential teachers need to be taught the skills of how to teach reading and mathematics in primary schools. I hope that courses will be provided both in colleges of education and in in-service training as, to how to maintain discipline in schools, which is becoming a more and more difficult and highly complex subject.
Thirdly, I hope that we can move away from the large, impersonal schools, which are centres of trouble, to smaller schools with which children and parents can identify. Lastly, I hope that the Secretary of State will, through the urban programme and other means, concentrate help in disadvantaged areas to ensure


that the differential disadvantages from which children in those areas suffer are overcome.
The nursery school programme—it was to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley that it was introduced—should be given a very high priority, particularly in the disadvantaged areas, where the nursery schools are needed most and where the nursery programme can make the greatest impact.
One of the sad things about the present situation is that the Secretary of State seems to be obsessed with the avant-garde theories of a decade ago. What happens to a child at the age of five is much more important than what happens to a child at the age of 11.
We would all prefer to take education out of party politics. One of the causes of the present crisis in our educational system is the abrupt changes of policy which occur upon changes of Government. Three months ago the Secretary of State had a great opportunity to lay the foundations of a national consensus on educational policy. He personally commanded great good will in all parts of the House, but he chose deliberately to throw that away and to introduce Circular 4/74 which embodies as extreme a policy as we have ever seen in education in this country. It revives not only the worst features of the previous Circular 10/65 but those of the even worse Circular 10/66 as well.
The principle is clear enough. The Secretary of State has set out to destroy the diversity of the pattern of our schools and to force them into a strait-jacket of rigid and universal compulsory and comprehensive education. That is the aim of the circular. We shall resist that. If battle is now joined on this issue, the responsibility rests squarely upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State. Perhaps it was always a chimera, in view of the ideological gulf between the parties on the aims of educational policy, to hope that we could have had some kind of non-partisan agreement.
The dominant principle in the policy of the Labour Party is to use the educational system as a means of social engineering to promote egalitariansim. We reject that completely. Our concern is to promote educational values in general and in particular to preserve and

strengthen the rights of parents in our educational system.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: What does the hon. Gentleman know about it? He is not a parent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I were a parent I think the hon. Member might make it a further point of reproach against me.
It is central to our philosophy of education that the right to educate children belongs to parents and is only delegated to the State or the local authorities or the teachers. It is part of the self-respect of parents, particularly in a society which is growing ever more impersonal, that they should be able to have a say and a participation in the education of their children. That is a principle which has been written into the Education Act of 1944 by Section 76. But it is too often ignored and it is flouted by the Secretary of State in his Circular 474. We are giving urgent consideration as to how that Section of the Act can be strengthened.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I taught for 13 years in a secondary modern school under the old selective system. Eighty per cent. of the children coming to my school were in the failed-11-plus age group. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me exactly what choice the parents of that 80 per cent. had?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is covered in a series of points that I am about to raise.
What we need to do is to extend parental choice and not to extinguish the limited parental choice which exists at the moment. Above all, parents want choice of school. That is why we value independent schools. Although it is only a minority of parents who make use of them, it is a large and a changing minority consisting of more than a million parents. It is not a matter of a few great public schools, although they are making a worthy contribution to education. It is a matter of small schools all over the country which meet specialised needs. Religious schools, schools of music, nursery schools and infant schools are all provided by the private sector, and all of them are threatened with extinction by the present Government. The Secretary of State has said that they are to have a reprieve. He has said that they are safe for a few years. But we fear that those years would be


very few were this Government to be returned with a larger majority at the next General Election.
When I was in the Department of Education and Science, I calculated that over the period covered by the White Paper on education up to 1983, we were being saved in the maintained sector nearly £1,000 million by the existence of these private schools. They are a contribution to the maintained sector because they relieve the maintained sector of a pressure which would be added to it if they were abolished. We shall protect their charitable status and resist any attempts to rig the law against them.
I turn to the direct grant schools, which are needed even more today than before, principally because they are centres of academic excellence. At a time when we are concerned about standards in our schools, it seems strange to threaten these academic centres with destruction. In this connection, one figure is extremely relevant. It is that 50 per cent. of pupils in these schools go on to higher education, as opposed to 7 per cent. of those in comprehensive schools.
Another important factor is that the direct grant schools provide bridges between the maintained school and the independent school and give a wider social mix than many independent and maintained comprehensive schools.

Mr. Christopher Price: That is completely untrue.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Even now, the Secretary of State is planning to get rid of them. He has told us that. The effect of this action will be to deprive parents of modest means of any choice. It will simply have the effect of driving the majority of these schools into the independent sector. Government policy again and again is directed not against the rich but against those of the centre and those in the middle income groups. We shall continue to support the direct grant schools. When the moment comes, we shall see that capitation fees are increased to take account of rising costs, especially teachers' salaries, and we shall consider whether to re-open the direct grant list. This would provide a refuge for the 40 or so grammar schools in London which at the moment are being persecuted by the Inner London Education Authority.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has referred to levels of academic attainment. However, I have no doubt that he will agree that it is easy to achieve apparent levels of excellence by excluding those who do not show any potentiality. Are not there great dangers in that and in the fact that the direct grant system has its bridge at 11-plus rather than the bridges of which the hon. Gentleman speaks?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is possible to achieve high academic standards only by some form of selection, and selection takes place in comprehensive schools as well as in grammar schools.

Mr. Spearing: But not at 11-plus.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Important though these two groups of schools are, it is the maintained sector in which more than 90 per cent. of our children are educated, and that must be our principal concern.
Conservative national policy is clear. We believe in principle that a diversity of schools is desirable. We think that there should be not only a choice between comprehensive and grammar schools but a choice between different types of comprehensive schools—between single-sex and mixed schools and between denominational and non-denominational schools. The pattern in any locality should depend on educational considerations, local needs and parental wishes. In the County of Buckingham, for example, all types of schools exist happily together.
We are not and never have been against comprehensive schools as such. We are against the ruthless and mindless imposition of these schools everywhere as a matter of doctrine. That is a very different matter.
What finally convinced me of the folly of this type of policy was my experience in the Department of Education and Science when dealing with Birmingham's proposals to this effect. What Birmingham needed was not a set of botched-up comprehensive schemes. It needed an extended building programme, and I have no doubt that it still needs it. The folly of the policy and the present proposals of the Secretary of State is compounded in that he is not providing a penny extra for the compulsory comprehensivisation of schools.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the hon. Gentleman extend the strictures that he has laid against my right hon. Friend in terms of imposing comprehensive education against the Conservative leaders of the Surrey County Council, of the Barnet authority and of many other local education authorities which are doing what they wish to do and were prevented from doing by his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is castigating at the moment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. The whole point of our approach to this problem is that we allow local authorities to choose the system or combination of systems which, subject to parental wishes and general educational considerations, is the best for their areas. Our system is a flexible one, as opposed to the rigidities of what the Government are attempting to impose. The Government are making an idol out of the comprehensive schools when they should be taking a long, hard look at what is happening in comprehensive schools.
Quite apart from the question of principle, there are practical reasons for maintaining a diversity of schools. We do not know enough about the academic results of comprehensive schools and their merits and demerits compared with selective schools to make a final judgment. We have no evidence, for example, to prove that either bright or slow children benefit from being in mixed ability classes. We need time to make the right assessments, not to impose a dogmatic overall pattern which would be done prematurely.
While on the subject of selection, it is not a case of putting the 11-plus back or going back to it, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) assumes. No one wants that. It is a question of using flexible methods of assessment and making some provision for transfer between schools so that we get rid of the rigidities of selection and at the same time preserve its advantages.
We have to remember that selection will take place in any event. The choice is between selection for ability and selection by social class. Parents simply buy their houses in more prosperous neighbourhoods where they find better comprehensive schools—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Nonsense.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is the truth of the matter, and the hon. Gentleman can check it by looking at price lists in estate agents. By abolishing the selective and direct grant schools the Secretary of State will deprive the bright child in a poor area of the chance of having a good and suitable education for his talents.
I turn in conclusion to the circular. Our principal objection to it is its rigidity, its compulsion, and the intolerance of both its ideas and its language.
Parents' rights are dismissed in a throwaway phrase:
Authorities will no doubt continue to have due regard to parents' wishes in respect of their children's education, e.g. in denominational schools where these are available.
That is all. The vagueness of that language is all the more striking when it is compared with the precise language of the overriding principle laid down in the circular,
 … the need to eliminate all forms of selection at all stages.
There is no principle in the circular to mediate between these two contradictory principles. What it means in practice is that the parents' wishes will be simply ignored if they want the selective system of schools to be preserved.
There is a further objectionable blackmail in paragraph 13 of the circular. Any authority that dares to resist is to be deprived of its building programme. That means that local authorities are to be put into an intolerable dilemma by the Secretary of State. They will have to choose between the kind of organisation which they believe to be right in the long run and the short-term interest of their pupils, because if they dare to go for a long-term selective form of organisation they will penalise the children who are at their schools now. So the children are being used in a totally unscrupulous manner to establish a universal system of comprehensive education.
The third and perhaps the worst feature of the circular is the bullying of the voluntary aided schools. These schools have their rights and status guaranteed by law, and yet they are told by the Secretary of State that if they do not fall in with his wishes they may be deprived of financial support. I hope that it is


clear to the managers of these schools that this threat has no basis in law. They will be well within their rights to resist it, and if the governing body of any of these schools exercises that right it will have the full hacking of the Opposition. Under the law the governing body of those schools alone has the right to propose changes to the Secretary of State.
What a reflection it is upon the Secretary of State that in a circular he should stoop to this kind of intimidation which could threaten the whole balance of the 1944 Act in its most sensitive part—the religious settlement. Already the evil effects of the circular are being felt throughout the country, but especially in London where 40 voluntary aided schools are threatened. These are schools of proven worth and high esteem. They include Godolphin and Latimer, Emmanuel Battersea Grammar School, Sir Walter and St. John, Strand School, Clapham County School and Rosa Bassett School. Take Godolphin and Latimer as an example. It is an excellent school, but it is proposed that it should join up to a school of a totally different character separated by a mile. Between the two schools is one of the worst traffic intersections in Britain. What will happen to those schools if the circular is allowed to stand? They will go independent and the end result of this intolerable policy will be to deprive thousands of parents of the choice they at present enjoy.
Let me make clear that the next Conservative Government will withdraw this circular. It could be withdrawn tomorrow and would be if the Liberal Party would remember its past traditions of liberality and freedom and vote for this motion tonight. The immediate effect of that would have to be the withdrawal of the circular on the expression of the mind of this House. Whatever the Liberals do—and it is anyone's guess from reading their amendment—we shall be true to our principles, and by voting for the motion tonight we shall strike a blow for parental rights and freedom that will reverberate throughout the kingdom.

4.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Reg Prentice): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the

end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognises the need to raise academic standards in schools; and, having regard to the denial of any real choice to the majority of children in a selective system, congratulates the Government on the steps it has taken to develop a fully comprehensive system of secondary education, and to increase the opportunities for all children, without regard to means or social position, to realise their educational potential to the full.
We have heard a most extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) who begain by proclaiming the need for a non-partisan and consensus approach to these matters and then proceeded to make the most partisan and reactionary speech on education that we have heard from the Conservative benches for many years.
This is the second time in two months that the Opposition have chosen to use half a Supply Day to debate Circular 4/74 and the whole question of comprehensive reorganisation. There is a marked contrast between the two occasions. On the first occasion the debate was on the motion, "That the House do now adjourn", and there was no Division. On this occasion we have a highly contentious motion on which the Opposition apparently intend to divide. On the first occasion the case was put in a truly non-partisan spirit by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), but on this occasion it was put in a most partisan fashion by the hon. Member.
These two events illustrate the schizophrenia of the Conservative Party on education policy, because in it are two strands distinctly observable, both in this House and in the local authorities. There is a minority tradition—what I would call the Edward Boyle tradition—which is reasonable, middle of the road and well informed on education policy. These attributes, particularly the last, are crimes in the Conservative calendar, because the majority tradition, the diehard tradition seeks to pander to the most reactionary views of a minority of the people of this country. The unforgiveable crime of the hon. Member for Wokingham, and the reason he is not on the Front Bench today, is that he was in the more enlightened tradition. That is why the change has taken place.
The Opposition motion favours selection, and they must not fudge that, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford tried to, in his speech. He said—I took down his words—that his party "is not against comprehensive schools as such", but we are faced with a motion that demands the withdrawal of a positive Government policy directed towards the extinction of comprehensive secondary education. If the motion were passed it would encourage those in the local authorities who want to preserve selection and it would discourage those who want to end it.
If the Opposition want to defend the 11-plus, let them get up and state a case for it, but they should not in one speech say that they are not against comprehensives but they are against any policy to bring about comprehensive education.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Surely there are different sorts of selection, and just because we are in favour of selection that does not mean selection at 11. So far the Secretary of State has at no time acknowledged in the House that there can be a system of comprehensives with selection at 15 into a sixth form college. Is the right hon. Gentleman to deny local authorities the right to have sixth form colleges?

Mr. Prentice: No. The model of comprehensive education involving an 11 to 16 comprehensive secondary school and a sixth form college was one of the alternatives specifically mentioned in the circular that is under attack in this motion.
I object not merely to the purpose of the motion on the spurious grounds put forward in it but particularly to the reference to concern about standards of conduct and learning. That is smearing comprehensive schools in a totally unfair and unreasonable way. Of course we are concerned about standards of conduct and learning, but I suggest to the Conservatives that the onus is on them to prove why our concern in these matters leads to the conclusion that we should withdraw the circular.
Let me examine both these matters. On standards of conduct, of course we are concerned about truancy, indiscipline, violence and bad behaviour of various kinds. I should have thought that we

could all acknowledge that these have always been problems for schools, and that there are problems of behaviour particularly among some teenagers, problems connected with the difficulties of growing up, and problems arising from bad home backgrounds or from the fact that some teachers and some schools are better at coping with discipline and moral problems than others.
These problems have existed for generations. They are not recent problems. As to the question whether they are now worse, in the survey conducted by the Association of Education Committees into these matters there was a division of view in the returns, between local education authorities and between schools, whether there had really been a deterioration. But if we assume that there may be a deterioration in some of these matters, I put it to the House that this applies to the whole of society. We are concerned about many features of our national life today—the growing incidence of crime, the growth of attitudes by some people which involve a declining respect for the law, and the growth of destructive and anti-social attitudes in our society. The schools are not exempt from this; but the schools should not be identified as the cause.
Having said that, I believe that the schools must help to tackle these problems. It is my duty and my Department's duty to support them in that. I do not accept for a moment that because we are calling upon LEAs throughout the country to reorganise on comprehensive lines we must, therefore, be neglecting the other matters—which was one of the points the hon. Member for Chelmsford seemed to be making.
We have been conducting a survey into truancy. I hope to publish the statistics arising from that very shortly. We have commissioned research projects into variouts aspects of this matter—a research project into the effectiveness of school-based treatment of maladjusted children, and another research project into secondary school influences on children's behaviour. All this work must go on. These are very serious matters, with which we are all concerned. But if the Opposition want to link these problems with comprehensive reorganisation, the onus of proof is on them, in the debate, to show the connection. No one has


shown it yet, and the hon. Gentleman did not show it in his speech.
I turn now to the other half of the phrase, where the hon. Gentleman talks about concern for the standards of learning. Of course, the amendment expresses our wish to raise academic standards in schools. This is common ground. But in what sense are we being told that standards of learning in this country have been lowered or are likely to be lowered by comprehensive secondary education? Where is the evidence for that? Let me give two sets of figures to the House, taking the eight-year period from 1965 to 1972 inclusive. During that period we have seen a 28 per cent. increase in A-level passes, taking the whole secondary school system of England and Wales in this case. We have seen an 11 per cent. increase in O-level passes. The reason why the O-level figure is lower than the A-level figure is that, simultaneously, we have seen the exciting new development of the CSE examination, for which there has been an eight-fold increase in passes in that period. In other words, this has been a period in which, measured by examinations—which are only one measurement, not necessarily terribly accurate but a rough and ready measurement—we have seen an improvement in our secondary schools of academic attainment. Simultaneously, during that period we have moved from a situation in which we had 221 comprehensive schools, with 6 per cent. of the secondary school population in them, to 1,602 comprehensive schools, with 47 per cent. of the secondary school population in them. I believe that part of that improvement in academic standards—not necessarily the whole of it—is due to the fact that there has been this comprehensive secondary reorganisation.
Anyone who visits a comprehensive school in a locality in which selection prevailed a year or two ago will meet boys and girls in the fifth and sixth forms who are getting excellent academic results, and he will be told that these boys and girls failed the 11-plus examination a few years earlier. For those in the middle range of ability and for the late developers we have opened doors, extended choice—if choice is what we are arguing about—and given new opportunities. The onus of proof is not on me but on the Opposition to say why we should connect concern about

academic standards with the case for withdrawing Circular No. 4/74.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman is using statistics he must be careful in informing the House about what those statistics mean. Is it not the case that the increase in A-level and O-level passes is because more children have been taking those examinations, and that the proportion of passes each year is constant from the point of view of the examining bodies? Therefore, it proves nothing whatsoever about educational standards.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman, unintentionally, is backing up my point. It is part of my argument that a larger proportion of children should stay longer at school and carry on their studies to a later stage and, therefore, should sit for CSE and GCE at O-level and A-level. If the Opposition want to say that reorganisation in a comprehensive direction is bad for academic standards, they have a difficult job on their hands if they are to reconcile these figures with the fact that the country has been moving in a comprehensive direction during the years in question.
I now come to the argument about the rights of parents. This is the most "phoney" part of the whole argument from the Opposition benches. The motion refers to Section 76 of the Education Act. The House should consider what that section actually says. Omitting some of the verbiage, it says that both the Secretary of State and the local education authority
shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
That is not a guarantee—to use the word which is in the motion. Indeed, this matter has been tested in the courts. In the case of Watt versus Kesteven County Council in 1955 it was reiterated that Section 76 lays down a general principle to which the Minister and the LEAs must have regard, along with the other relevant considerations.
We all know that in practice local education authorities now and in the past have had to deny choices to parents for reasons of geography and the availability of school buildings. and because some


schools—whether grammar, modern or comprehensive—have been very popular and have had better reputations than others. Therefore, LEAs have had to deny the first choice to parents in a very large number of cases. They do so every year, under Conservative or Labour Governments, and this has been an unavoidable fact of the situation.
I believe in the extension of voluntary choice just as much as the hon. Member for Chelmsford believes in it. But we must be frank about this matter and say that the practical difficulties involved have always prevented that choice being exercised fully. But, in addition to that, there is a great element of humbug in the Opposition's case. They are not talking about 100 per cent. of parents and children. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) brought out the point clearly in his intervention. It is the same point as was made last week in The Times Educational Supplement in referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford made during the previous weekend. The article said:
It is certainly disingenuous to deprive four out of five parents of the right to choose anything but a secondary modern school (howsoever labelled) in the name of parental choice'.
That is the answer to that part of the motion.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The right hon. Gentleman is on record as having indicated that he is in favour of phasing out both direct grant and public schools. They educate only 6 per cent. of the total population of schools. Why is he seeking to eliminate those? How does he reconcile his remarks with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which gives parents the distinct right to choose the education for their own children?

Mr. Prentice: As many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I do not want to discuss at length this afternoon the future of direct grant and independent schools. However, let us have a debate about them. I should be delighted to debate the subject at any time the Opposition choose. I have answered the point on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in what I have just said. There cannot be, and there never has been,

under any Government in practical circumstances a completely free choice for the majority of parents. We might as well face that frankly.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Prentice: I must carry on. I have other points to make and many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I had better not give way any more.
I want to emphasise our commitment to the extension of choice for pupils within schools. That is what the debate is about.
The central argument against the 11-plus selection system is that basically it confines the choice that is open, even if the choice were made freely—it is not; it is made by an arbitrary test—to a conventional grammar or modern school. However, there are many types of children needing the greatest variety of choice within the educational community in which they work. I want more choice for the child who is below average at the age of 11 and who later develops a talent, perhaps in one or in more than one subject, within the educational community in which he works.
I want to see a choice open to the boy who is perhaps a potential technician of ability who wants to spend a lot of his time in the woodwork or the metalwork shop combined with advanced mathematics, but who has no talent for any other subject.
I want to see a choice open to the girl with abilities and interests in domestic science combined with potential ability in English but no other subject. We want to bridge the gap between the old rigid concepts imposed by the selection system. We want the maximum choice for the below-average pupil who remains below average but is stimulated to take an interest in one subject or another and therefore requires a greater variety of choice.
There is another aspect of choice which is relevant to this matter. We want to liberate the primary schools front the strait-jacket imposed on their syllabus by the dead hand of 11-plus selection. In other words, we on this side of the House stand for the maximum choice being made available to pupils in the system from eight or nine years of age


throughout the rest of their school life. The Opposition want to hang on to 11-plus selection, which is opposed to choice. We argue in favour of maximising choice.
I do not pretend that reorganisation on comprehensive lines will of itself provide the wide variety of opportunities that I have mentioned. However, I believe that it will open up the options and enable resources to be used in ways which will enlarge the choice.
That will depend on resources and, above all, on teachers. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in his emphasis on the need for teachers to have a better deal in terms of salaries. That is relevant not only to recruitment and the retention of people in the profession but to morale and efficiency.
I make only one addendum to what was said by the hon. Gentleman. He is right about the relative position of teachers having declined under both Conservative and Labour Governments. But the previous Government in 3¾ years did nothing about the situation. We have just established a commission under Lord Houghton to look into and do something about it. It is true that the hon. Gentleman wished the commission well, but it is hardly a point to be made in the context of what is supposed to be a motion of censure against Government when we have acted on a matter on which they delayed action for 3¾ years.
The motion before the House is bad enough, but I understand that we are threatened with a great deal worse. The hon. Gentleman apparently gave an interview to Mr. Max Wilkinson of the Daily Mail, a report of which appeared on Wednesday, 26th June. That report opened with the statement:
The tough new Shadow education secretary, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, is preparing a bombshell which will shock Left-Wing educational pundits".
Some of the contents of that bombshell are not very precise. We are not told how far the Conservative Party is yet committed. It apparently includes, if the article is correct, a possible decision by the Opposition that the compulsory school leaving age might be reduced to 15 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] "Quite right", say hon. Gentlemen opposite. It includes the possibility of a voucher system which would enable public funds to be

used to subsidise the independent sector of education. It apparently includes a reopening and extending of the direct grant school list. Indeed, today the hon. Gentleman said that he had this in mind. It is what many hon. Gentlemen opposite want.
All these policies are a long way to the right of any policies pursued by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the previous Government. Her policies were bad enough, but we are now threatened with policies far more reactionary than those carried out by the right hon. Lady.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Excellent a paper as the Daily Mail is, and very good a journalist as Mr. Max Wilkinson is, I should like to point out that he is writing for himself. The parts quoted by the right hon. Gentleman are what Mr. Wilkinson was saying, not what I was saying.
On this important point about the school leaving age. I have never said either to Mr. Wilkinson or to anyone else that it should be reduced to 15 years. I said that because of the difficulties that had arisen in the last year we would look to ways of being more flexible so that some of the objections might be overcome.

Mr. Prentice: That brings me to my next and almost final point. I certainly look forward to greater clarification of the hon. Gentleman's thinking on some of these matters. I think that all on this side of the House will look forward with a certain relish to the prospect of debating Conservative policies on some of these matters.
It is fascinating to me that, at a time when the Leader of the Conservative Party is talking about the need for national unity, the Shadow Education Secretary should be working out policies which will provide greater inequalities and divisions in our society than for a very long time. Cloudy generalisations about national unity will not carry much conviction if the policies to which the Opposition are committed are as divisive as those that they appear to have in mind. If it means that at the forthcoming General Election education will play a larger part than in the past, I will welcome it. I think that the next General Election will


and should be about education and that it ought to be recognised as one of the major issues to a greater extent than in General Elections since the war.
The hon. Gentleman today and in public utterances since he became Shadow Education Secretary has helped to define Conservative policy more clearly. I should like to make it clear to the country that the choice will be between a reactionary, backward-looking divisive policy and the policy to which we are committed in our amendment, namely,
to increase the opportunities for all children without regard to means or social position, to realise their educational potential to the full.

4.58 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I agree with the Secretary of State in forecasting that education will be one of the important elements in the forthcoming election. I agree that it should be, because it is patent from every discussion that we have in our constituencies and with friends that people are desperately worried about what is going on in some of our schools. I believe that those worries are fully justified.
There are too many schools in which both work and behaviour are bad. In the worst, teachers have lost control and work is constantly disrupted by rowdy children who have been allowed to get out of hand and to defy authority without being checked or punished. In such schools truancy is rife and teachers are mocked, threatened and even subjected to physical violence. Such hostile prospects are already driving some teachers in training—for example, in the Birmingham area, as the National Union of Teachers told us two weeks ago—to seek work outside education. This is a serious situation.
It is claimed that such schools are most often found in decaying inner-city centres. But, in such areas, some good schools do exist and triumph over the difficulties of the environment. As a member of a Select Committee, I have over the past six years visited many of those areas and I have been taken over good schools. I have, on my own account, also visited other schools in such areas—I refer particularly to Clissold Park in Stoke Newington where two of my nieces have been teachers. Some of those good schools were in bad buildings, but they were marvellously led by gifted heads and

dedicated staff. There the children were secure and full of life and could get on with their work and play. There, also, parents were encouraged to take a lively interest in the school community and the school was being begged by parents from outside the immediate neighbourhood to take in their children.
The stark fact is that we do not yet know enough about what makes a good school work. We, certainly, do not know enough to allow us to be dogmatic. But we do know that it depends far more on leadership and on teachers and on the support of parents than on buildings and equipment. We know that good schools can be found in deprived neighbourhoods and bad ones in easier neighbourhoods. We find both not only in decaying city centres but also in the country.
Schools must not be too large, otherwise it becomes difficult to build proper relationships between the staff and the young. They must be orderly and disciplined. A good school must be a learning community in which young people are cared for as individuals and feel confident, and in which they can grow and flourish. It takes time and imagination to create such a community, but this is what we should be aiming at.
Such a school is easily recognised. In any neighbourhood most parents who are concerned about the education of their children have a shrewd idea about which schools are good and which are bad and where they would prefer to send their children.
So far I have been talking about schools in the maintained sector. But there are good schools and bad in other sectors, too—the voluntary-aided, the direct grant and the wholly independent.
Schools are living communities. They do not remain static. Today they are having constantly to adjust their attitudes and teaching to the rapidly changing conditions of the technological age, to the changing attitudes of parents and their young, and the changing attitudes of the teaching profession.
In this uncertain field it is right to experiment, but we must expect some of the new ideas, however fashionable at the outset, to produce problems when put into action. Some local education authorities are experimenting with middle schools and some with six form colleges. Both


these initiatives, as I hope the Secretary of State will allow, may affect the structure of the secondary comprehensives. There are new ventures also in the fields of further and higher education. And, at the other end of the scale, there are exciting educational discoveries in nursery schools and play groups. But these are experiments and we must allow time in which to judge both their contributions to our educational system and their claims on our limited educational resources. We do not know enough yet to justify imposing any of these new patterns uniformly throughout the country.
Here I come to the nub of my argument. Experience over the past few years has shown that the comprehensive school, too, is still experimental and should not be imposed upon us as the best or only answer. Some of them are good and some of them are bad—I hope that the Secretary of State will allow this, too—and there are many between the two extremes. But they have produced their own serious problems—for example, the idea of the right size for the all-through comprehensive is having to be revised. It has proved extremely difficult in schools of 2,000 or more to build a community in which the individual can receive proper care and a sense of security and belonging as a basis for making the best of his or her talents. If the size of such comprehensives should be halved—as ILEA now seems to think—their structure also may have to be changed.
Surely, what we now need is a calm and thorough assessment of what is good and what is bad in the existing patterns of comprehensive schools, and of how best to deal with those that are now recognised as being far too big. In the meantime, when there is so much doubt about the best patterns—and we shall always need variety and experiments—and when there are far too many bad schools and far too many desperately worried parents, I believe that it is wrong—it is educationally wrong—to destroy or change the nature of any good school anywhere. Equally, I believe that parental choice—a basic right that is being unduly restricted—should be made as wide as practicable and that it should be encouraged to play a more influential part in deciding which patterns are best suited to our needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has

described some of the choices which he believes should be open and should be expanded.
It is, I know, fashionable to assert that selective schools cannot usefully coexist with comprehensive schools, but this is not borne out by the facts. There are good examples of happy coexistence in London and in other cities, for example. Bristol and Norwich—

Mr. Skeet: And Bedford.

Sir G. Sinclair: There are many other protagonists of happy coexistence.
It would, I believe, be particularly damaging to our national stock of good schools if the Government were to develop their current pressure against the direct grant schools—

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by coexistence that where there is a group of grammar schools and a group of comprehensives, and where in those grammar schools the top 20 per cent. of the children have regularly been creamed off, that is coexistence? I cannot accept that at all.

Sir G. Sinclair: The hon. Gentleman may not accept that, but I invite him to visit some of those areas which I have mentioned and see what the facts are on the ground.

Sir John Hall: Would my hon. Friend not agree from his own personal experience that anyone who wishes to see first-class examples of diversity of education could be no better than visit Buckinghamshire?

Sir G. Sinclair: I have not ranged as widely as I would have liked to through Buckinghamshire.
If I may go on to make my own point, it would be particularly damaging to our national stock of good schools if the Government were to develop their current pressure against the direct grant schools and force them to become either entirely independent or comprehensive. I declare an interest as chairman of one direct grant school. They have earned their high reputation in our education system. It is a reputation for hard work, good academic standards and good conduct. They draw their pupils from the widest possible range of income groups, and they are good communities.
The headmaster of a direct grant school in Bristol, Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, has analysed the family occupations of parents of boys entering his school in the 15 years from 1954 to 1969 and compared them with the 1966 General Register of Occupations. His findings show that school percentages compared with national ones were as follows: Class I, professional—school 11 per cent., national 71 per cent.; Class II, intermediate—school 24, national 15; Class III, skilled—school 53, national 46; Class IV, partly skilled—school 7, national 25; Class V, unskilled—school 5, national 7. In other words, the zone that goes from bus drivers and clerks downwards—that is, Classes III to V—accounts for 65 per cent. of the parental occupations of the parents of the boys who have entered that school. That is a pretty wide social register.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose—

Sir G. Sinclair: I do not want to give way again because there are other speakers.

Mr. Christopher Price: On this point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. May I remind the House that this is a shortened debate and that interruptions will stop some hon. Members from getting in?

Sir G. Sinclair: Thank you, Sir.
The direct grants schools are among the academic pace-setters but they also produce balanced communities in which the young can both learn and develop as individuals. They should not be threatened or harassed. On the contrary, they should be given the opportunity, while keeping their essential standards, to serve able young people even more widely. They should be helped to continue their adjustment to our changing needs and to our constant need to bring on the best brains. Our need for good schools is so great and so urgent that the direct grant system should be expanded and some of the voluntary-aided schools should be encouraged to seek transfer to this sector.
I urge the Secretary of State to accept the motion and then to pursue three parallel courses—to carry out a thorough review of the comprehensive system, to

encourage all existing good schools of whatever kind and to provide the widest possible range of choice to parents, both in the maintained and in the other sectors of education.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to make short speeches so that others may get in.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: It is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) because, like him, I sit on the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration and together we have visited a large number of excellent schools to study the problems which concern the Committee. I can bear out the hon. Gentleman's evidence that every school we visited was a school that we could only admire.
I was interested that the hon. Gentleman, while rightly referring to the number of good schools that he had seen and knew at first hand, did not speak of the bad schools. It is easy for us here or people outside to talk about bad schools without really understanding the situation or the conditions of those schools. So-called "bad" schools in my constituency have been drawn to my attention. When I have investigated them, I have come away with the clear impression that each one had been slandered over the years. We do a great deal of damage if we speak in this way of certain schools.
A situation with which many London Members will have been concerned over the last few weeks is the problems which arise annually over secondary transfer. Again and again I hear of "popular" and "unpopular" schools. Invariably, I find that public opinion is wrong. It judges the look of the building or the area and does not spring from first-hand knowledge of the school or the quality of its teachers. So I hope that we shall cease talking of "good" and "bad" schools and recognise that certainly some schools have problems, especially in London and other great cities.
To suggest, as the Opposition motion does, that the cause is a move towards comprehensive education is, as the Secretary of State has already said, unjust, untrue and misleading. All of us, if we have any knowledge of education at all,


should be aware of the reasons for many of the problems.
One undoubtedly is the considerable staff turnover. I was glad that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) referred to that factor, although I wish that he had spent a little more time on the problem. My right hon. Friend has already taken a couple of practical steps, as he said, to deal with that situation. I hope that I am right in believing that the £10 million which will be made available for the deprived areas will be used to encourage teachers to stop in those schools and not move on.
My experience of teaching in a comprehensive school suggests that the troubles arise largely as a consequence of a constant turnover of teachers and the degree to which those schools depend on supply staff. Everything that my right hon. Friend can do to deal with that problem is much more relevant than the Opposition motion. We heard from the hon. Members for Chelmsford and Dorking the usual arguments—

Mr. John Wells: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of teacher turnover, which is very worrying, would he not agree that one of the greatest problems is lack of accommodation for teachers in the city centres, in places like Bethnal Green, where single teachers find it impossible to rent council flats? Is this not one of the biggest causes of anxiety?

Mr. Barnett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I could say a great deal about the matter, but I hope that he will understand if I do not pursue it. He is right to draw attention to it.
I said that the school at which I taught was a comprehensive school. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend had referred to direct grant schools. I also taught in a direct grant school for a number of years. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would describe it as a very good direct grant school. It had one of the best reputations in the country. Yet at the end of that period I was convinced that direct grant schools should not continue to exist.
The first reason is that almost invariably the big direct grant schools select a very small proportion of some of the appar-

ently abler children in a wide area at the age of 11. They cream off the top, as it were, in a certain area. One of the interesting discoveries I made was that there was almost as big a problem with the children who had passed the 11-plus, and gone into a direct grant school and failed there, as there was over the children who had gone to a secondary modern school on failing the 11-plus, and had missed opportunities which they should have had because their intelligence and standards developed subsequently.
It so happens that I was form master of the lowest stream in a direct grant grammar school. I was always worried about what the school was doing to those boys because, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford made clear, even within a direct grant school there must be a tight selection system to achieve the results that such a school achieves in terms of open awards at Oxford and Cambridge, which is what many of them are anxious to do. I have heard it said of one direct grant school—obviously, I do not want to mention its name—that it creams off boys or girls as soon as they enter and forces them right the way through to Oxford open standard. I believe that that is done at the expense of other children in the school, that the whole ethos of the school is turned towards academic standards, regardless of whether many of the children are academically inclined.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Barnett: This is a very short debate, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not give way.
I believe that positive damage is often done to non-academic children who find their way into direct grant schools. That damage is done because of the ethos of the school and because, being an academic institution, the school cannot cater for the child with practical or technical interests. Therefore, the tripartite, or bipartite system of education has the effect, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, of limiting choice and often putting children in situations that are wrong for them, because the 11-plus is so often unsatisfactory from that point of view.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way very


briefly? It should not be forgotten that perhaps it is the Burnham salary structure that works against a more flexible system within the present selective system set up under the 1944 Education Act.

Mr. Barnett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a chance to develop that point, because I do not understand it.
I referred earlier to the problem of maintaining teachers in schools, and particularly to the importance of doing so in the deprived areas, because it is only where there is a stable staff that the beginnings of the development of a good school are likely to take place. Reference has already been made in the debate to the general state of morale in the teaching profession, and to the way in which teachers' salary levels have fallen compared with those of other sections of the community.
We are already affected in London by a number of strikes as a consequence of the Pay Board's report. I want to put a question, the answer to which I hope will go some way towards reassuring those teachers now on strike. As I understand the situation, the report was made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who has regarded it as an interesting document and one that is no doubt useful to those public service unions which will be conducting negotiations, but that it in no sense states Government policy on the amount of money that will be available to public services in London, nor does it necessarily describe the way in which that money should be split up. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said on 1st July:
The Government have said that the matter is now for negotiation. We will not for many more weeks be governed by the statutory system, and that will assist the situation. I believe that the report can be used as a valuable guide for settling the matter, taking into account that the sums proposed are to be fair to London and to the rest of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 34.]
I believe that the Government, if I understand their position correctly, are right to see this question of the London allowance as one for negotiation. As to the size of that allowance, the sky is the limit, in that it is a matter for the unions to decide what should be the differential

between those public servants who work in London and those members of the same trade union who do not. I hope that that is correct.
If I am right, I believe that there is no reason for teachers in London to be going on strike now. I very much hope that as a consequence of the negotiations, and of the work of the Houghton Committee, we shall revalue our teachers and take steps to encourage them and give them a proper career structure within one school, rather than encourage them to move from school to school in furtherance of their careers as we have done in the past.
Only with a stable teaching force, and by trying to maintain teachers in a single school, can we hope to deal with the problems in some of our schools.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: I am glad that the debate has afforded the opportunity to discuss, among other things, the concern about the problems faced by a minority of schools this year, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) spoke. I do not think that many hon. Members will be in any doubt about the scale of the problems in some of those schools. I had occasion to talk the other day to an able young man who has the task of teaching the bottom stream at a London secondary school in an area of great difficulty. There is no doubt that he and others like him have a tremendous struggle, sometimes even a physical struggle, to maintain any semblance of order.
I know that that is not the general picture. I know very well that our attention is necessarily focused by the media upon the areas of difficulty. But we must examine the way in which the raising of the school leaving age is working out in practice. I should regard it as a counsel of despair to think that we have to return to a leaving age of 15. I do not believe that there is something inherently inferior about the British which means that we can encourage large numbers of youngsters to leave at 15 while the Belgians, the French, the Germans—in fact, most other civilised countries—recognise that there is a need for a higher standard of education for a higher proportion of the population.
None the less, it has been urged upon me by my friends in the Inner London education service and in my own very different area of West Sussex that there is little point in requiring all youngsters to stay on to the end of the summer term after examinations have been passed. I have reservations about the whole idea of two leaving dates—namely, Easter and summer. It is a concept that poses problems. I hope that the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends will consider carefully the argument that is being put to them from a number of quarters, including the headmasters of West Sussex schools, that there should either be one leaving date at the end of Easter and no compulsion beyond Easter or, better still, in my view, that there should be no compulsion beyond the end of May, so that those who had taken their CSEs would then be enabled to leave.
There is no doubt that there is a problem in the last month of the summer term. Many youngsters see no point in staying, and their eyes are entirely fixed on the outside world. Having said that. I was delighted that in neither of the Front Bench speeches was there a suggestion that we should, faced with the present difficulties, simply retreat to 15

Mr. Skeet: rose—

Mr. Chataway: Let me finish this point. Many of the difficulties that we now face were faced in exactly the same way in 1947. I am sure that many hon. Members who have spoken to older people in the education service will have heard that exactly the same problems of truancy and ill-discipline were faced in that year when the school leaving age was raised from 14 to 15 years. There is now less opportunity for local educational authorities successfully to prosecute in cases of persistent truancy. There have been changes in the law, and since the matter has been put in the hands of the social services undoubtedly there is a changed approach. That is a matter that we should consider.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said, we now have a society in which there is much less respect for authority and for law and order. Therefore, the schools face a more difficult task. I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), the Liberal spokesman on education, to look at some of the litera-

ture that is put out by Young Liberals and circulated round the schools.

Mr. Skeet: rose—

Mr. Chataway: I have an example here. It reads:
Do you resent the decisions and punishments imposed upon you—reject the authoritarian structure of your school? … We want to end privilege and authoritarian control in schools—the prefectorial system …".
I do not exaggerate the importance of that, but I believe that there is a duty for the House to help teachers in hard-pressed schools who need public support and backing if they are to maintain the framework in which orderly education can take place.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a similar leaflet which has been circulating in schools in my constituency which scarcely helps teachers in their task. The Young Liberals say:
We want to see all decisions affecting the internal running of the school decided democratically by a Joint Schools Council of students, teaching staff and domestic staff.

Mr. Chataway: That would not seem to me to be an ideal way in which to organise a school.
I now turn to the questions of choice, selection and secondary reorganisation, which have dominated this debate as they dominated so many of the debates in which I have taken part in the past 10 years or so. I am in favour of comprehensive schools. I am opposed to the 11-plus. That is a view to which I have not come lightly. I have felt the full force of the argument on both sides. My emotions have, over 15 years, been engaged on behalf of the various conflicting interests. I have had the experience of going round good grammar schools and meeting their staffs. They know that they are doing a first-class job for the children that they teach. They naturally fear for the changes that may be made.
I spoke to groups of parents when I had responsibility for the Inner London Education Authority. I have spoken to large groups of sometimes anxious and sometimes angry parents, who have rightly feared that during the process of transition there would not be much benefit for their children. I have represented Chichester for some years. West


Sussex is, I suppose, what the Secretary of State would call a backwoods Conservative area. The right hon. Gentleman made a rough division between the two types of Conservative area. In the last 15 years my local authority has not often had the misfortune of any significant representation from parties other than the Conservative Party. It has pursued consistently a steady policy of secondary reorganisation and except in one area we are totally comprehensive. I do not pretend that changes have been made entirely without transitional difficulty, but I am certain that if there were any suggestion of reintroducing a bipartisan system in West Sussex there would be furious opposition.
The experience to which I have referred, and my experience of seeing many comprehensive schools over the years, has convinced me that if reorganisation is carried out properly and is not rushed for political ends, it can ensure that we have comprehensive schools which are able to do justice to the full range of ability. One of the troubles, and one of the reasons for argument within the House on this subject, is that there tends to be a good deal more party political interest in this forum than in some other forums—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Fora.

Mr. Chataway: —or fora. I must confess that I am not a product of the kind of school of which at the moment I am speaking well. One of the troubles is the unrealistic and extravagantly elagitarian claims that are made for comprehensive schools. In the first paragraph of the circular we are told:
The Government have made known their intention of developing a fully comprehensive system of secondary education and of ending selection at eleven-plus or at any other age.
Can the Government be serious? Do they think that it is within the capacity of any Secretary of State to end selection in education? We live in a society which is bound to be served by our schools. Does anyone think that we are moving towards a society in which there will be no selection—a society in which the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation will have equal status and standing with any of the corporation's cleaners, where people will not mind whether they are Prime Minister or party constituency

workers? Of course not. We shall always have a society in which there will be selection
It is odd that in this House—where we all spend a great deal of our time assessing and reassessing the ability of individuals—almost more than anywhere else, personal ambition and competition for advancement are often responsible for getting things done. It is odd that in such a place people can talk as if the education system can abolish selection. It cannot.
The argument is not whether there shall be selection; it is about when, where and how. First, when? For those with disabilities I hope that selection will be as early as possible. It is vitally important that many of the disabilities should be identified early and that the child be given special care in a special school. For those with a particular genius—for example, a genius for music, ballet or, perhaps, mathematics—there may be an argument for early selection. There may be a necessity for a special institution as the kind of teaching that is required is so specialised. But for most, the age of 11 is, I am sure, far too early.
How should there be selection? Not, I think, between two different types of school. After all, human beings come in a greater variety than that. If they came in two different types, the bi-partite system would be admirable and we would not have seen local education authorities, Conservative as well as others, moving away from it over a period.
My anxiety about the bi-partite system is not that it is selective—there will be selection, anyway—but that it is an inefficient form of selection, based on the demonstrably ridiculous proposition that there may be a value in dividing children into two classes. They come in many more categories than that.
So, selection should generally be in the school to the extent to which it is self-sufficient. There are important questions, to which we should give more time, about streaming, for example—that is to say, segregating not a totality of ability within the school but setting the dividing process according to ability in a particular subject.
I am convinced that it takes a teacher of far more than average ability to teach a mixed ability class. I have a child with


experience of mixed ability teaching, and I know that it can be done well. It has been done well in independent schools and primary schools for a very long time. There is nothing new about it, but it demands more of the teacher, and I believe that there is a danger in some of our secondary schools that those teachers with no more than a commitment to a progressive idea may be forced into taking mixed ability groups when they are not really prepared for it. So, selection within schools seems to me to be far more important a subject than selection between schools.
The same goes for choice. There is no more choice under the bipartite system than under the comprehensive system—that stands to reason. I do not think that anyone would argue about that. If there is simply a secondary modern school and a grammar school serving one area, no one in his right senses whose child has passed the 11-plus will choose the secondary modern school, while no one whose child has failed the 11-plus will be able to choose the grammar school. There is no choice in those circumstances.
More difficult is the concept of coexistence. I do not care at all for the revengeful spirit which seems to go after the grammar school just for the sake of abolishing it. If, in an area, as we have been told, only 1 per cent. of the children go to a grammar school, that is not inhibiting the existence of the comprehensive schools. Clearly, we should not work for uniformity, but we must he motivated by the spirit of wanting to create something rather than destroy it. As parents have to make their choice, so do we. We cannot pretend that we can have a grammar school which takes 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the children locally and also a comprehensive school. We can put a comprehensive label on the other school if we want to, but it is still really a secondary modern school.
The majority of parents naturally will not take a risk with their child who is bright; they will put him in with the rest who are bright. There are choices to be made, and all of us reckon that we have to face them. Let us keep as much as we can of choice within and choice between schools.
When I was Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, I had the task, as my hon. Friend the Member for

Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) no doubt did, of dealing with appeals under Section 76 of the 1944 Act. One tried all the time to help any parents one could. One's inclination was to try to find a way, but if the school to which parents wanted their child to go was full, there was little one could do. In many areas, such as rural areas, there is little choice anyway.
Choice by parents is often taken on very imperfect knowledge. I have been particularly struck by the fact that in the independent school sector parents do not seem to devote the same kind of appraisal of alternatives to the choice of school as they do to their choice of car. In deciding upon a car for the family, they go into great detail about performance. Yet, in choosing a school, they are apt to do it on the basis of a visit, or just because they were there themselves.
Nevertheless, far more important is the succession of choices which the child has to make within the school. I hope that our attention will increasingly be focused on this very important area. In some schools, the extent to which parents are brought into the picture and encouraged to think about and make choices is admirable; in many other schools, parents are kept at arm's length. I believe entirely that what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has called "parent power" is vital. All research has shown that the main determinant of a child's progress is the home, and that if we want to have the parent involved we have to give the parent some information about the important choices, and that the important parental influences are the continuing ones—the ones that are influential throughout the child's career.
I have made my criticisms of the circular issued by the Secretary of State. I do not believe that he will look back on it with much pride, or regard it as one of the great State papers. I hope that the argument will be increasingly concerned with the problems of the great majority and with the vitally important question of selection and choice within a school as well as between schools.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I was much interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway). I agree with him that we


need to pay attention to the choice that a child can make within the school. Of course, the more fully comprehensive a school is, the wider the range of choice a child can make. The more we have not merely selection but segregation of children at the age of 11 into different types of school, the narrower will be the range of choice within the school. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, without quite realising what he was doing, was inserting a stiletto into the back of some of his hon. Friends who have been determinedly trying to defend selection. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that at the heart of the motion lies a desire to preserve segregation at the age of moving to secondary school, and therefore, whether hon. Members opposite like it or not, the desire to preserve the 11-plus.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) have tried to dodge that question and the idea has been put something like this: let us have an arrangement whereby we have many different types of school, some called "grammar" schools—which, presumably, are intended to cater only for those children who are judged at the age of 11 to be the brighter children, and will provide academic courses—and some called "comprehensive" schools, which will be populated by those children who have not been able to get into the grammar schools, and perhaps a few others, which we might call "commercial" or "trade" schools. But if we have that system, the schools that one calls "comprehensive" are not comprehensive at all.
I admit, as a point of elegant argument, that if there is what the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) was describing—a grammar school that took 1 per cent. of the age group while the other 99 per cent. went to another school—possibly the word "comprehensive" could be used in respect of that 99 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is nothing like a typical picture. When there is an attempt to have this happy coexistence between grammar school and comprehensive, people try to put in the grammar schools between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.—one of the criticisms of the system is that the percentage varies

widely and illogically from one area to another—while the rest are put into what is called a "comprehensive" which, by its nature, cannot be comprehensive.
It is important to notice that that is done on the basis of some sort of selection procedure at the age of 10½—what is popularly known as the 11-plus. However much the method of selection is refined by the introduction of, heaven help us, psychiatric tests and the rest of it, what is being done is that a decision is being made when the child is aged 10½ which will affect the kind of school he enters.
It is not selection; it is segregation into different types of schools intended for different purposes. It is done on the basis of some sort of test. It is wrong to say that it is done on the basis of parents' choice. Where, in any of these systems that we have had described—where there are grammar schools and so-called comprehensives peacefully coexisting—is there a rule that any parent can have his or her child go to a grammar school simply by saying, "I want my child to go there"?
It is not parents' choice; it is segregation by the 11-plus—by an educational method the fallibility and stupidity of which has been increasingly demonstrated over the years. We ought to give all parents as much say in the way in which their children should be educated as is possible, consistent with the problems of running a system of education.
If a parent says, "I believe my child's abilities are such that I want him to go to a secondary school in which academic courses of instruction will be provided," that is a reasonable enough request. If the parent goes on to say, "and what is more, I insist that in that school there shall be no other kinds of courses of instruction and no other kinds of children who are not academically gifted like my child," the parent is claiming control, not only over his own child's education but over the education of other people's children. That is what we reject, and that is what follows inevitably from the whole concept of the continued existence of what is called the grammar school.
I say, "what is called" for this reason: if we mean by a grammar school one that provides what I call, for lack of a


better term, academic courses of instruction, well and good. No one objects to the existence of such schools. If, however, we mean one that provides those courses of instruction and only those, and that as a result an irrevocable choice must be made for the child, I say that that kind of school is a damage to educational progress.
I do not believe that the defenders of segregation have seriously considered the profound educational arguments against the continuation of the 11-plus. To put it in popular terms, the continuation of the 11-plus is what this motion asks for. Disguise it and cover it up under any form of words, but that is what it comes to. What we understand by parents' choice is as much choice as is possible for every parent, consistent with the problems of having a system of education at all. What the Conservatives want, what they understand by parents' choice, is almost 100 per cent. choice for a few parents while the other parents have to take what is left.

Mr. Skeet: The right hon. Gentleman must be wrong. If his party intends to phase out the public school system and the direct grant school it will completely eliminate parental choice. I recognise that there may be a diminished choice, but the point is that the Government's recommendation would completely eliminate any choice.

Mr. Stewart: No. I advise the hon. Member to study the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. It is inside the school that the important choices are made. It is the more comprehensive school that gives the wider range of choice. The hon. Gentleman's championing of the direct grant and public schools supports exactly what I said—a freedom of choice open only to a very small group of parents. It is that for which Conservatives are prepared to fight, irrespective of what happens to the great majority outside. Their concept of freedom of choice is freedom of choice almost 100 per cent. to the few while the others take what is left. In that few there will be included all the better-off parents.
Conservative Members cannot dodge that fact. The quoted examples of children from working-class and poor homes who, in limited numbers, get to the privi-

leged schools, do not alter the fact that freedom of choice for the Conservative Party means freedom of choice for the few and within that few there will always be included the better-off.
I want to develop the objections to the 11-plus. It is an inescapable result of the philosophy advanced by Conservatives. If schools are not comprehensive there must be a method of determining who goes to the grammar school and who does not. That means the 11-plus, whatever fancy name it is given. The first educational objection is that this method of selection is fallible. The chances of a child getting to a grammar school will vary, in the same area, according to the sex of the child. It will vary from one area of the country to another according to the idea of the local education authority about the percentage of children who ought to go into grammar school. It will vary from one year to another according to the number of children in the age group, which will vary from one year to another, and the fact that there are a limited number of places in the grammar schools.
The standard oscillates wildly from area to area and year to year. I hasten to say that those extreme words are not mine. They come from a report commissioned by the Conservative Teachers' Association which call be studied in the files of the periodical called, "The Conservative Teacher".
The next and, in the long run, the more serious educational objection, is that if a child is labelled at the age of 11 we are influencing the sort of child he will become. Consider the child who does not appear at the age of 11 to be what is commonly called a high-flier but who is friendly, prepared to work hard, and is reasonably able. Put him in a school which everyone knows is a school intended for the less bright, which does not normally lead to further or higher education, and the probability is that his abilities will be stunted and directed away and he will leave that school as soon as he can. Then the people who have produced that result will say, "There you are, he is an early leaver. How right we were not to put him into the grammar school."

Mr. John Stokes: Surely, with his great experience


of life as well as of education, the right hon. Gentleman must know that the great thing about life is that those who stay on at school do not necessarily succeed in life. Just think of business. Some of the best business men left school at the age of 14 and worked with a barrow.

Mr. Stewart: Some people have achieved an outstanding position in life without being able to read, but we do not on that account recommend illiteracy. What the hon. Gentleman suggests can happen, but that is not the kind of consideration on which one can base an educational policy. In the highly complex world in which we live people need longer schooling, as everyone who can pay for it knows perfectly well. The doctrine that school is not so important is never followed by the well-off.
The objections to segregation by the 11-plus are these: first, it is highly fallible; secondly, it involves discouragement and waste of talent; thirdly, it has a distorting effect on primary education. As long as there is something in the nature of the 11-plus it will always mean heartache for the head teacher of the primary school. He, or more usually she, wants to give an education to all the children so that they develop their talents to the full, but she knows that in the neighbourhood the question which parents are asking, if they have a choice is: which primary school has the best record for the 11-plus?
The hon. Member for Chelmsford expressed concern for the teaching of literacy and mathematics in primary schools. We want to liberate the primary school from a system which constantly tempts it to take a great deal of trouble with the few and not to apply itself to the education of all children so that they can develop all their talents.
It is hardly necessary to bash the 11-plus further. I quote to the House the following sentence:
There is nothing to be said in favour of a system which submits children at the age of 11 to a competitive examination on which not only their future schooling but their future careers may depend.
The source of that quotation is a Government White Paper which was published in 1943. Yet still the Conservative Party is trying, by the back door, to

keep in existence this method of segregation. It is not only educationally undesirable; it is profoundly undesirable socially.
We hear a lot about the need for a united nation. People are engaged in many different types of work, some with the hands, some with the brain. Most people have to work with both, but work varies enormously according to the emphasis on hands or brain. It is desirable that those many types of people, who all contribute to the prosperity of our country, should have a better understanding of each other. We shall not get if the central feature of our educational system encourages young people, at an early age, to concentrate rather on the differences of gift and ability that divide us than on the common humanity that should unite us.
What we are up against is spelled out in letters that one gets from people who are in favour of the grammar school in its present narrow form and against comprehensive education, and that is the desperate desire of, I hope, a small group of parents to make sure that their children are doing better than somebody else's. Professor Tawney said:
For some people it is not enough that their own child should get a good education. What they really desire is that some other child should get a worse.
It is to that doctrine that the hon. Member for Chelmsford has become a recruit. That is why he is sitting there and why the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) is not.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I do not speak with the professional knowledge possessed by some hon. Members, but I have for some years served as a school governor in areas varying from North Kensington to my constituency of Brighton. I declare an interest, in that I have a son and a daughter who are at present in grammar schools in the Brighton area.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) will forgive me if I do not comment in detail on what he said, but I must, with great respect to him, reject totally his last comment. No more than a tiny fraction of parents are so vicious and obsessed with their own children that they desire them to have


a good education at the expense of someone else's children. All parents naturally wish to give their children the best possible education that is available to them. That last comment was a most unfortunate one, which spoiled the fair and reasoned speech which the right hon. Gentleman made.
I want briefly to try to reflect one or two opinions that have been put to me by a strong body of educationists in my area in relation to the problems arising from the raising of the school leaving age. During the last month I have had letters from six headmasters in the area, and from a large number of teachers in Brighton. I shall read one paragraph from a letter I received from the headmaster of one of the best-known secondary modern schools in the Brighton area—a letter that pinpoints some of the arguments I wish to raise. He says:
It is my hope that there will be a comprehensive review of the impact of ROSLA on secondary education in the nation as a whole and more especially in those areas where the staffing situation is critical. There appears to be ample evidence that a large number of teachers have become so disenchanted with the prospect of working under the present unfavourable conditions, when little real educational progress can be made, that they are leaving the profession for other occupations. For the same reason I suspect that many potential teachers will be deterred from taking up appointments in secondary schools.
It is no exaggeration to say that most young adults have a keen sense of justice. The Secretary of State referred to the decline in respect for the law. The headmaster of another well-known secondary school in Brighton used these words in a letter to me:
For many such pupils the period between the end of public examinations in June and the official end of term will be a demoralising period of unconstructive idleness. Schools have not the staff or resources to provide usefully for this resentful group of young people who sec no useful purpose in attendance.
Those are not just the views of the headmasters of those two schools; I spoke to both of them today and asked them to give me an assurance that the views expressed in those letters represent the views of the vast majority of their staff, and they have done so without qualification.
I refer to what the Secretary of State said about the decline in respect for the law. If young adults who are staying at school for a fifth year leave school with

a burning sense of injustice at the stupidity of the law we shall, in the long term, pile up trouble for ourselves, because it will take many years to eradicate that feeling.
We should be considering carefully the school leaving age. I do not say that we should go back to 15 but the view I shall put forward has the support of a large number of educationists in my area and, I believe—although I cannot quote chapter and verse—in many other parts of the country. There must be a strong case for up to about 10 per cent.—no more—not staying on for that final year. It would be to their benefit, to the benefit of the school, and to the benefit of the education system.

Mr. Skeet: The Labour Government of New Zealand have decided to put the school leaving age back to 15. Would it not be wiser to consider this proposal, or, as my hon. Friend indicated, to have a less rigid system so as to avoid some of the difficulties experienced by teachers?

Mr. Bowden: This was the point I was hoping to develop. What I believe should happen, again reflecting the view of educationists, for I am not a professional educationist, is that in the case of this 10 per cent. we should have a system—I leave it to the Secretary of State to think about this—whereby in individual cases within that 10 per cent., where the parents, the pupil and the headmaster wished it and the local education authority supported it, the individual should be able to leave before he had technically reached or passed his sixteenth birthday.
At the risk of boring the House I will quote from one further letter, again from the headmaster of a well-known secondary school in my own area of which I was for some time a governor:
I believe the basic injustice which causes the problem is that the right to leave depends upon age and this is arbitrarily fixed.… I do not believe that there would be a problem if, for instance, all pupils had the right to leave school at the end of the Easter term; and that those who stayed on for examinations could leave on June 1st if they wished.
I had given to me today the staggering fact that in at least one school in Brighton the truancy rate in the fifth year is running at nearly 60 per cent.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Nonsense.

Mr. Bowden: It is a fact. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying "Nonsense".

Mr. Marks: rose—

Mr. Bowden: I would like to give way but I have given a pledge to make a 'very short speech. It is a fact that in a school in Brighton the truancy rate in the fifth year is running at almost 60 per cent.

Mr. Marks: Name the school.

Mr. Bowden: I will. It is the White hawk Secondary School in Brighton.

Mr. Marks: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at this school, which has only 40 per cent. of its pupils on the register in attendance, all those who are away are truants?

Mr. Bowden: I will quote the exact words of the headmaster to whom I spoke on the telephone this morning. He said the average attendance is 41 per cent. What I do know, and what I am quite sure is correct, is that in many cases the authorities are turning a blind eye to truancy of this kind. This must be doing great damage not just to the school but, more important, to those young adults who know they are flouting the law in this way and find themselves in this impossible position. Surely the time has come for the Secretary of State to have the courage to admit that we need changes before next year. I am quite certain the Minister has had many representations on this. I ask him to rethink this matter before it is too late. Changes are needed. I would ask him to think about this and consider the position before we have reached a terrible position next year.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: My party's opposition to the Conservative motion is not because the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) managed in one sentence to woo and insult the Liberal Party, adding as an afterthought that he did not understand its amendment, nor because the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), in what I thought an excellent and sympathetic speech, read a piece of Young Liberal policy out of context—had he

read the whole speech it would not have been out of context—but because the motion does absolutely nothing to help education.
Educationists are bored, and rightly bored, with politicians. Teachers, parents and pupils are sick of having their achievements claimed as a statistic in favour of one or other party. I suggest it is very doubtful whether any pupil in any school will feel that the realisation of his educational potential has received a great boost as a result of our deliberations this afternoon.
The Liberal Party will support the Government in the Lobby tonight because we welcome, and have long campaigned for, the abolition of selection as the determining factor in secondary education. We had grave doubts about Circular 10/70, and in general terms we welcome Circular 4/74, if not wholeheartedly certainly as the lesser of two evils. We would like to see an orderly and peaceful transition to comprehensive education in our secondary schools, but to date nothing the Secretary of State has said would have us believe it will be in any other way.
The Secretary of State mentioned the voucher system, which is something that my party and I have always passionately believed in. He said it will cause the country to subsidise private education. I would plead for a little honesty, like admitting the very great subsidies received by local education authorities from parents of children in the private sector, parents who send three, four or even five children into the private sector and pay rates at home and at their office, 50 per cent. of which goes to the local education authority. When I say I deplore the dishonesty of that I must also say I was not keen on the smug and self-righteous assertion of the hon. Member for Chelmsford who said he would look into possible amendments on the subject of raising the school leaving age. Yesterday afternoon he had every chance of voting on a Private Member's Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule but he sat noisily abstaining.

An Hon. Member: It could not have become law, anyway.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It was my speech that did it.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Member for Chelmsford says "It was my speech that


did it". I assure the House that there was nothing in the hon. Member's speech, unlike that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, which would have caused me to say to my colleagues "Let us support the Opposition and not the Government."

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Freud: No, I will not give way, because I promised to be very short, and I am grateful to have been called.
My party thinks it is only right that all sides of the House should strive jointly to achieve the object of our amendment—that the new comprehensive schools should be limited in size, that we as a nation should put politics to one side, and that we as a House should get together to help teachers in order to get for them not only more money and better living conditions but greater esteem in the public eye.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I am more than glad to follow the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). We on our side will gladly accept the defeat of the Government of national unity on this particular occasion, though it might come hard to members of the Opposition. Beyond that I cannot find very much in the hon. Member's speech that I can follow, so I will confine my remarks to the motion and to the amendment put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The noteworthy fact about this debate which comes to mind almost immediately is that, given the tremendous interest in education that has been expressed by the members of the Opposition, they can afford to give us just one half day in the House. I know that certainly large numbers of my hon. Friends are only too anxious to enter into this debate. Unfortunately, because of the time factor, they are unable to do so.
The Opposition's motion falls into some generalities in urging certain courses of action on the Government. It comments upon the
… widespread disquiet amongst parents about the standards of conduct and learning in certain schools …".

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw: In a moment. I have not started yet.
Having read the Opposition motion, one might ask "which schools?" At no time has any Conservative speaker picked out a particular school—except for the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden), who, when pressed, mentioned a school in his area, with a truancy rate of about 60 per cent.—a figure which I personally find very difficult to believe. However, I will take the hon. Gentleman's word for it and the word of that headmaster.

Mr. Bowden: I was referring to last year.

Mr. Shaw: When the motion talks about parental disquiet, it surely must be agreed that parents have always been disquieted about the education of their children. This disquiet has not been felt only in the last four months. I have experienced disquiet expressed by parents and I have been teaching for a long time. Parents have come to see me and have said that they have been unhappy about the sort of education their children were receiving in a particular school. They have not necessarily criticised me, but they have been disquieted. This is quite natural, and I repeat that this condition has not arisen within the last four months.
Because of the "disquiet" expressed by the Opposition, the Government are urged to take a completely different course. The Opposition motion calls for the withdrawal of Circular 4/74, which seeks a reorganisation on comprehensive lines, and then the motion uses the phrase
… without regard to educational considerations …".
I do not intend to argue the merits or demerits of the comprehensive school since that argument has been going on for years, but for Conservatives to suggest that the comprehensive school is still in an experimental state is plain daft.

Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?

Mr. Shaw: In a moment, when I have finished this part of my speech.
The Conservative attitude is daft because the comprehensive school has been with us for many years, and nearly


half the secondary pupils in the country attend comprehensive schools. I should like to ask the question: at what stage will the experiment end?

Mr. Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one major problem that faces the comprehensive schools is the heavy turnover in teaching staff? Is he conscious that this is due to the size of the comprehensive schools, and does he also appreciate that it is the result of the failure of comprehensive schools to provide the right sort of teacher-child atmosphere as a place where children can grow?

Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman's Friends on the Opposition Front Bench had given their back benchers more time in the debate, the hon. Gentleman might have had a chance of coming into the debate and expressing those viewpoints. Most of the questions which he has raised I shall seek to meet in the time at my disposal—although, unfortunately, I have not very much of it.
I should like to draw attention to the education situation in the borough of Redbridge. It has been suggested that somehow or other the process of selection has been abolished—that certainly was the impression I gained from the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). But in the borough of Redbridge the selective system has been going on all the time. We have a "mixed economy" of schools. We have grammar schools, comprehensive schools and secondary modern schools, all the choice in the world, and surely that choice should delight the hearts of Conservatives.
We have a selective process as a result of which we divide our children into three groups, As, Bs and Cs. The As we shovel into grammar schools; the Bs have a choice since they may go to comprehensive schools. I should have mentioned that the As also have a choice: they can opt for the comprehensive school. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many of them do?"] We do not get many of those. Then there are those in category C, who have the choice of going into a secondary modern school—unless there happens to be a neighbourhood comprehensive in the area, in which case they are able to opt for that school. Therefore, that division exists. I emphasise that the process of

selection goes on all the time and there is very little parental choice.
On the matter of parental choice, I should like to mention the advantages of the neighbourhood school, in which I have always been a great believer. I believe in the neighbourhood school because it exists in the primary sector and works very well. But, more than that, I am a firm believer that the school should be a focal point of the community. If the parents are sufficiently involved in the school, many of the ills mentioned by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely would largely be obviated. He referred to truancy and various other ills which have been expressed during the debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Such as?"] Well, truancy was mentioned. Vandalism has not been mentioned, but I shall mention it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely had a long time in front of him to develop his argument. I suggest that he could have made his point at that time.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member respected the wishes of the Chair.

Mr. Shaw: I was saying that if the interest of parents is sufficiently sharpened in terms of their neighbourhood school the ills will disappear and the parents will become involved in the community as a whole. That community will gain considerably by the neighbourhood school, which will be the comprehensive school for the area. I hope the House will reject the Opposition motion and will support the Government amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: We have had an interesting and useful debate about a subject which is of tremendous concern to all the people, and especially to all of the parents, in this country. I think this debate has come at a good time. I suppose we shall hold an election in the autumn. I hope that this debate will be widely reported and that the fundamental divide in the position between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party—between the Government and the Opposition—on education will be noted by parents.
This fundamental divide rests on two basic propositions. The first is the effect that the enforced, rushed, immediate imposition of comprehensive education will


have on standards, and, secondly, the importance attached by the two parties to the views of parents, the degree of consultation that parents should be given, the involvement that the parents should have, and, above all, the choice that parents should have.
The only two speakers on the Government side to mention parents were the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who said that the parents were out of touch, and the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who made a somewhat disparaging remark about parents.
It will be interesting for parents to see which way the Liberals vote tonight. I became well aware, during the last election—at least in my constituency—of the fundamental ignorance of the electorate about Liberal policies, especially on education. Again and again my constituents thought, erroneously as it turned out, that the Liberals—talking of participation, choice, parents, communities, as they do—would resist compulsion from the centre in respect of comprehensive education. If the Liberals enter the Lobby with the Government tonight, the electorate will know differently when the next election comes. This debate has provided a useful example for the electorate at the next election.

Mr. Freud: May I point out that the Liberals have always believed in the ending of selection?

Mr. Shelton: The Liberals talk with two or three different voices.
There are two fundamental divides between the Government and the Opposition. The first is that of the forced imposition of comprehensive education because of Circular 4/74. That is nonsense, because the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Fulham put forward a bogus proposition. They said that either comprehensive education must be enforced, or we must be in favour of the 11-plus examination. That is equivalent to saying that one must either enforce matrimony on every one or be in favour of bachelorhood! May not people have a choice? May we not leave it to local areas? May we not leave it to parents perhaps? We believe that we should.
Let me remind the Minister, who will be concluding the debate—I am sorry the Secretary of State is not present—that

there now exists a problem, recognised by most educationists, concerning all-through comprehensive schools. The difficulty is that, certainly in urban areas, in order to generate a sixth form sufficiently large to provide a range of options, one must have a 12-form entry school, which, with a bit of luck, will provide a large enough academic sixth form. But it will bring with it the problems of truancy and even of violence, as shown in the survey made by the National Association of Schoolmasters, which was mentioned in the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), who said the schools must not be too large. We know that after building a series of enormous comprehensive schools, the ILEA consulted the parents a few months ago and was surprised when the parents said that the schools were too large and that we must have smaller schools. I believe that in 10 or 15 years' time, the monstrous 2,000-pupil all-through schools will be regarded by all of us in the House with the same aversion as that with which we regard the tower blocks we built 20 or 30 years ago.
So we have smaller comprehensive schools. We go down, perhaps to the six-form entry comprehensive school. Let me give the House an example, because it is much better to talk specifically and not in generalities. I shall not mention the name of the school, but if the Minister wishes I shall tell him afterwards. I refer to a six-form entry mixed comprehensive school in South London with a roll of 1,000 pupils, with a sixth form that includes 60 pupils for the two years, of whom 22 are studying A levels but only six of whom are studying for two or more A levels.
The Secretary of State asked for evidence of standards of education being lowered.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that one of the reasons for the situation to which he has referred is that the existence of grammar schools in the same locality creams off many of the children who should be in the sixth forms of those schools?

Mr. Shelton: I shall come to that shortly.
Let me also mention another school, this time by name—Battersea Grammar


School, in South London, with a roll of 600, with 150 pupils in the sixth-form, all studying for three or more A levels, with 18 or 19 options. It is the intention of the ILEA to turn Battersea Grammar School into a six-form mixed entry school. I challenge anyone to say that the academic standards will not fall as a consequence.
Before I come to the subject of the creaming-off of pupils, allow me to say a word about the raising of the school leaving age, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). There must be general agreement in the House that it would not make educational sense to return to a school leaving age of 15. I believe that we must look for doors through the last year. If the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely asks why I did not vote with him yesterday, my answer is that in his Ten Minutes Rule Bill he included a door through to employment. I believe that any door through must lead to full-time education, perhaps to a technical college.
The creaming-off of pupils has been mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dorking and the right hon. Member for Chichester—and there was an interjection, putting the Government point of view, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
All I can do is to give an example. I do not believe that one should deal with this problem in generalities. One must take specific cases. There is a proposal, as a result of Circular 4/74, to close the Battersea, Strand, and Tennyson three-form entry grammar schools. They feed from an area in which there are 25 comprehensive schools, with an average of eight-form entry. Some have six-form entry and some have 12-form entry, which implies roughly a 200-form entry in the area. If one takes the boys from those grammar schools and feeds them into the first-year classes of those comprehensive schools, on a mixed ability basis, the result is slightly fewer than one-and-a-half boys per class. If anyone tells me that one-and-a-half A stream boys per class will make a profound difference to a six-

form or 12-form entry comprehensive school, he must try to convince me of the result!

Mr. Freud: It is the half which makes the difference.

Mr. Shelton: It is not even a half. It is less than that.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, I cannot defend the 11-plus examination on educational grounds. But neither can I defend the large, all-through comprehensive school. Both give rise to educational problems. But to destroy the good grammar schools in order to feed the other schools is to make a certain loss for an uncertain gain.
Fortunately, at the moment a great variety of educational experiments are being conducted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking pointed out. There is a campus system being tried in Norfolk, there are sixth form colleges, and there is a middle school being tried in Hove. But we do not know the results. They are not being monitored. We do not know what is happening.
I suggest that we ought to find out the right way to proceed. I hope that we shall not make the same mistake that we made 10 years ago, by saying that the answer is the all-through comprehensive. It may be that today the middle school will be preferred. But let us not destroy our good schools until we are sure which is the proper course to take. In 10, 20 or 30 years we may still want selection. It may be that we shall want it at the age of 13. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester said, we shall always have selection of some sort. Anyone who denies that cannot be living in this world.
I come finally to the rôle of parents and teachers. I read with great interest a survey conducted by the Assistant Masters' Association on the introduction of mixed ability teaching in schools. I was fascinated to see that in answer to the question,
Why was mixed ability teaching introduced?",
not one mention was made of parental consultation. There was scarcely any mention of parental pressure. In 24 cases it was introduced by decree of the headmaster.
We know that in theory we have consultation. We know that little attention is paid to it. We know that petitions are signed by thousands of parents and that little attention is paid to them by the Government. We know that the protest meetings of parents overflow the halls in which they are held. We know, too, that little attention is paid to them. What the Conservative Party must do is—as we have said—to acknowledge the existence of parent power. I prefer literal paternalism to State paternalism.
We must study the ways in which we can strengthen Section 76 of the 1944 Act. We must uphold parental support for good schools, whatever the schools. If parents and teachers are sufficiently determined, and are in sufficient numbers, they will have our support.
We ought to have a dramatic increase in the numbers of parents on boards of governors and of managers of schools, directly elected either by postal ballot or at annual meetings. There should also be obligatory teacher representation, with the school head automatically ex-officio. Some heads are not even invited to meetings of the boards of governors of their schools. It should also be made obligatory for headmasters to encourage and support parent associations or parent-teacher associations. We might even encourage local school committees, possibly on American lines. We are the only country in Europe which does not have them. Such bodies would be able to bridge the gap between, for example, the I.L.E.A. and boards of governors.
We believe in a charter for parents, who have a right to a voice in the education of their children. After all, without parents there would be no children to educate. Some officials and a number of Government supporters seem to have forgotten the rôle of parents in education.
The Government's attitude to education comes as no surprise. It is the same ideological mould as their attitude to industry, to commerce, to the National Health Service, to pensions, and to almost anything else one cares to mention. It shows the same antagonism to the private sector, the same dislike of competition and variety, and the same mistrust of excellence and high standards. It is no wonder that, as a result, the Government fear the voice of the parent. They fear all forms of local participation, whether

in the shape of the business man, the patient, or the parent. Unlike the Government, we trust parents.
I urge the House to vote against the Government amendment.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on his promotion to the Opposition Front Bench. I look forward to many encounters with him, and I wish him a very long stay in that position.
Unlike the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevan), I do not want to fudge any of the issues. Education cannot be neutral. The way that we organise our education service and what we regard as being important in the education of our children is a reflection of what we believe about men and the society in which they live. That is why any talk about taking politics out of education is nonsense. What we think about the way in which our children are educated indicates our belief about society. Therefore, it coincides with our political ideology. I do not pretend for a moment not to bring to this most important subject, dealing with the greatest asset of our nation, an ideological point of view and a faith which I want to proclaim.
In a radio broadcast today, the hon. Member for Chelmsford claimed to have fathered the Opposition's motion. In his speech, he referred a great deal to parental choice, to the need to modify education policies and to the necessity for withdrawing Circular No. 4/74. In a speech which lasted less than half an hour, he devoted 17 minutes to the private sector. He allocated a disproportionate amount of time to that sector which deals with more than 90 per cent. of our children. Unlike him, I intend to deal in the main with the public sector.
We have heard arguments about rushing uniformity and comprehensive education on to every authority in the country. We have heard about parental choice, and so on. It has always been my understanding, however, that parents have a vote in local elections and General Elections, and that our local authorities have definite powers in relation to the


central Government, especially in the organisation of secondary education.
The Opposition claim to give overall priority to parental wishes. However, the Conservative administration rejected proposal after proposal made by democratically-elected local authorities. To talk today about the overriding importance of parental points of view is a little hypocritical, in view of the action which was taken by the Conservative Government's Secretary of State for Education and Science.
I stand for egalitarianism in education, and I am not running away from that concept in any way. During my lifetime I have seen in the public sector those who were already privileged, those who were considered by some selection procedures to be academically gifted, favoured even more with a disproportionate share of the nation's education resources. I want to pursue a policy which will give a disproportionate share to those who are disadvantaged, who are under-privileged and who at the present are being shrugged off by some Conservative Members and by the media. The school leaving age has just been raised.
There are problems of indiscipline and truancy, and I do not ignore those problems. They are very real and are making teaching more demanding and more difficult than at any time in my lifetime. I do not suggest, however, that the answer to these problems is to thrust these children on to a competitive world and allow them to make their own way. Children who have been rejected are least able to make their way in the world, and people who glibly talk of getting them into employment and then allowing them, as the Liberal Party spokesman said yesterday and as the Conservative spokesman said today, to go back into full-time education should realise that that simply would not happen. Those who leave early rarely have any subsequent contact with the education service.

Mr. Bowden: Does the Minister not accept that it is widely held among education opinion—experience in Brighton proves it beyond doubt—that it would be of advantage to the education system and to the percentage concerned if up to 10 per cent. of those who are

staying on for the fifth year did not do so?

Mr. Armstrong: I certainly do not agree, and there is no evidence to support that view. There is a good deal of opinion and media expression, but there is no evidence, and my right hon. Friend is now conducting research to get to the truth of these statements.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford knows full well that the Secretary of State has control over certain matters but that there are many matters in the education service which are the responsibility of the local authorities. Perhaps one of the main responsibilities of my right lion. Friend is the supply of teachers—I agree that the supply of good teachers is the most important contribution we can make to education. In an interesting survey conducted by The Times Educational Supplement of eight comprehensive schools in London one of the heads said that there was no problem in London comprehensive schools which could not be overcome given an adequate supply of teachers of the right quality. It was a bit much for the Opposition to berate my hon. Friend. I remind them, bearing in mind the rapid turnover of teachers, particularly in London where there are considerable problems, that their Government offered less than £20 a year—below 40p a week—on the London allowance to teachers who were working in conditions which the Opposition this afternoon have described as intolerable. At least my right hon. Friend has taken an initiative and is allocating more than £10 million to teachers working in schools where they are subject to stress and strain. That sum is debatable and negotiable through the Burnham Committee and in the independent inquiry which is now being conducted by Lord Houghton.
Much has been said in the debate about disruptive elements in our schools. I listened carefully to the hon. Members for Chelmsford and for Streatham. Frankly, they said nothing about any aspect of their policy, and there is no mention of it in the motion, which would help the most deprived and under-privileged children, children to whom I would give priority.
Measuring it by any yardstick, I regard our children as better educated than ever before. There are more O-level and


A-level successes than ever before. Judged by the numbers and percentages going on to higher education, they are doing better now than at any time in our history. The ability of our youngsters to communicate, their confidence and their ability to hold their own in the world are better than ever. We are not complacent, however. Of course there are tremendous problems but we tend to look back to what we regard as the golden age, to the situation years ago when we thought that we could with accuracy and ease—those were the terms—determine a child's intelligence, and that that intelligence would remain static for the rest of the child's life. We gave what we called secondary education to about one-third of our children, and a third of those were failures in academic terms.
I still visit three-form entry secondary schools where I am given a list of the A-level and O-level successes. I always ask about the number of children who have pursued a five-year course in a secondary grammar school, a school geared to O-level and A-levels, and some of whom leave with no O-level success or with only one or two certificates. The truth is that they have been in the wrong school. They should never have been segregated in that way. When I hear Conservative Members say that these children should be transferred I know they are wrong. I have been the chairman of many governing bodies, and I know that the worst thing for a child is to be told two or three years after an 11-plus success that he has not made it and that he must go back to the secondary modern school. If that girl or boy goes back the gap widens, and instead of making progress the child will deteriorate.
Direct grant schools are the most highly selective schools in the country, and that is nothing to boast about. Only 50 per cent. of the children at them go on to higher education. When a school is highly selective and when the teachers are geared to academic success one is left to ask what happens to the other 50 per cent. I am sure that the parents of most of the entrants into the direct grant schools have their eyes on university and other forms of higher education.

May I now deal briefly with the question of the London allowance. We have had the Pay Board's report. The subject is now for negotiation in the Burnham Committee. The Government are considering the repercussions of the report, and I hope that we shall soon be able to give a satisfactory judgment.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart)—a former Secretary of State for Education and Science—that if democracy is to work at all, especially the kind of social democracy in which I am a fervent believer, we have to create in the country mutual respect for the dignity and the personality of every individual, no matter how he may be going to earn his living and no matter what his environment and background may be. I am not suggesting for a moment that the schools can solve this problem on their own, but they have a vital contribution to make.

When there are comprehensive schools alongside selective schools, it means that comprehensive schools are not getting their share of the top ability range. Despite that and all their other difficulties, the comprehensive schools are succeeding, and that is proof of what would happen if they got the whole ability range. The comprehensive schools are widening opportunities, opening doors and enabling more and more children to realise their full potential. The greatest blot on the British education system has been the number of children who have been written off before they realised their full potential.

Therefore, far from apologising for Circular 4/74, we stand by it—not because it will bring rigidity to the education system but because it will provide the climate in which good teachers with ability can provide wider and enlarging opportunities to all our children. That is something that we stand for. If the Opposition want to make a political issue of it, we would welcome that political battle in the country. I ask the House to reject the motion and approve the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 271.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[7.02 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Archer, Peter
Ashley, Jack


Allaun, Frank
Armstrong, Ernest
Atkins, Ronald




Atkinson, Norman
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
George, Bruce
Milne, Edward


Bates, Alf
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Baxter, William
Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William


Beith, A. J.
Golding, John
Moonman, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Graham, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Moyle, Roland


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Booth, Albert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murray, Ronald King


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Oakes, Gordon


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Ovenden, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)
Hatton, Frank
Owen, Dr. David


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Padley, Walter


Campbell, Ian
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hooson, Emlyn
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Parry, Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Huckfield, Leslie
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Michael
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI)
Price, William (Rugby)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Radice, Giles


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Colin
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Cryer, G. R.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Rooker, J. W.


Dalyell, Tarn
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Edward


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sedgemore, Bryan


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Selby, Harry


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Delargy, Hugh
Lamborn, Harry
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney &amp; P'plar)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, John
Sillars, James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silverman, Julius


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Snape, Peter


Edelman, Maurice
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stott, Roger


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Evans, John (Newton)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, M. O. F.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Flannery, Martin
Mahon, Simon
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fletcher, Tea (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tierney, Sydney


Foot, R[...] Hn. Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Tomlinson, John


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Torney, Tom


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tuck, Raphael


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E.)
Tyler, Paul


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Freud, Clement
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.




Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woodall, Alec


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)
Woof, Robert


Watkins, David
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley(H'f'd&amp;St'ge)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Weitzman, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)



Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


White, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)
Mr. Walter Johnson.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan


Aitken, Jonathan
Fell, Anthony
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Le Marchant, Spencer


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fidler, Michael
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Ancram, M.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Archer, Jeffrey
Fletcher Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Baker, Kenneth
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&amp;Stone)
MacArthur, Ian


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.


Banks, Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Macfarlane, Neil


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate&amp;Banstead)
MacGregor, John


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
McLaren, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&amp;Amsh'm)
Madel, David


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marten, Neil


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Goodlad, A.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick(RoyalT'bridge Wells)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (B'grove&amp;R'ditch)


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter


Brittan, Leon
Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall, Sir John
Molyneaux, James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Money, Ernie


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)


Budgen, Nick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Sir Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heyhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Carlisle, Mark
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Henderson, J.S.B.(Dunbartonshire, E.)
Mudd, David


Carson, John
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Higgins, Terence
Neubert, Michael


Channon, Paul
Hill, James A.
Newton, Tony (Braintree)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey, E.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Osborn, John


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Hurd, Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cope, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Corrie, John
James, David
Percival, Ian


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin.Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std&amp;W'fd)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Crowder, F. P.
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Davies, Rt. Kn. John (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. James
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dixon, Piers
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy



Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn Sir Peter


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Evelyn (Dorset S.)
Redmond, Robert


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David(H't'gd'ns're)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eyre, Reginald

Rippon. Rt. Hn. Geoffrey




Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, John
Warren, Kenneth


Sainsbury, Tim
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)
Wells, John


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
West, Rt. Hn. Harry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tebbit, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net,H'dn S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Silvester, Fred
Townsend, C. D.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Sinclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Smith, Dudey (W'wick&amp;L'm'ngton)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard



Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)
Viggers, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
Waddington, David
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Stainton, Keith
Wakeham, John
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Stanbrook, Ivor

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the need to raise academic standards in schools; and, having

regard to the denial of any real choice to the majority of children in a selective system, congratulates the Government on the steps it has taken to develop a fully comprehensive system of secondary education, and to increase the opportunities for all children, without regard to means or social position, to realise their educational potential to the full.

Orders of the Day — EEC (ECONOMIC POLICY)

7.18 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1253/74, R/1474/74 and COM(74)696.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr Jay).

Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not question your decision not to call the amendment, but may we have your guidance on how these matters might be dealt with in future? The European Secondary Legislation Committee will be recommending debates on various matters in the House. I think that it will be difficult if hon. Members on some occasions cannot amend some of these orders and directives and have to vote either for or against them in principle. I believe that the European Parliament has power to amend directives. I think that it is desirable that the British House of Commons should have the same power.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised a serious point. I am proceeding carefully step by step. I have decided that the right course today is not to select the amendments. That does not mean that, as we find our way in this complicated sphere, other procedures may not develop. However, today I have not selected the amendment.

Mr. Dell: I cannot complain that the first debate in this House following a report of the new Scrutiny Committee should be opened by me. As a backbench member of the then Opposition in 1972 I moved amendments to the European Communities Bill which would have required the establishment of a Select Committee of this House to review European secondary legislation. My amendments had no success because they were rejected by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He wished the matter to be left for consideration after the enactment of the Bill. However, the effluxion of time has brought the Scrutiny Committee into existence and it falls to me to open the debate and I understand that the right

hon. and learned Gentleman will be intervening in it. It also falls to me to congratulate the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) on his appointment as Chairman of the Committee.
The guidelines system dates from 1971—before the United Kingdom became a member of the EEC. It forms part of the process of strengthening the co-ordination of short-term economic policies in order to achieve that convergence of member State's economies originally conceived of as one element in progress towards economic and monetary union.
The Government's position on economic and monetary union has been made quite clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. He has told other EEC Ministers that a good deal of further work will be required before any further decisions can be taken.
However, irrespective of progress towards economic and monetary union, the system provides useful practical machinery for discussing national economic policies and their interaction. In this respect EEC discussion complements discussion in other international fora, such as OECD. These EEC discussions have, inevitably, particular importance for those EEC member States whose economies show a high degree of interdependence with one another.
For the United Kingdom they provide an additional means whereby we can make our views on common problems known in a way which may influence other countries to adopt policies of general benefit. For example, in present circumstances we can seek to influence countries in surplus to adopt policies which will ease the adjustment process in the wake of the oil crisis. But the importance of the guidelines system should not be exaggerated. It is essentially a matter of consultation between sovereign Governments, falling a long way short of the harmonisation of economic policies envisaged as part of full economic and monetary union.
In the explanatory memorandum which was submitted with the draft Council decision on the adjustment to the guidelines for economic policy for 1974 I commented on the impact of this draft Council decision on United Kingdom law, its policy implications, and the intended timetable.
I shall refer, first, to the timetable. The draft decision was expected to be taken at the meeting of the Council of Finance Ministers on 6th June 1974. However, in order to enable the Scrutiny Committee to examine the draft decision my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a reserve on this item. The Scrutiny Committee considered that this draft decision required a debate in the House and, following this debate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor hopes to be able to lift his reserve on the adoption of these guidelines.
As I said in the explanatory memorandum, the draft decision does not directly concern matters covered by United Kingdom law, and requires no changes in United Kingdom law. Some hon. Members may be afrighted by the fact that this is a draft decision and therefore under Article 189 of the EEC Treaty it is
binding in entirety upon those to whom addressed".
There may have been visions of the United Kingdom Government being hauled before the European Court of Justice should we depart from these guidelines. There is, in fact, no danger of that. The United Kingdom Government remain in control of this country's economic policy, subject, of course, to all the well-known constraints on national economic decision making which make consultation so important a part of international economic diplomacy. That this is the case may be further confirmed as I come to discuss the guidelines themselves.
I said in the explanatory memorandum that the recommendations for the United Kingdom were broadly in line with the policies already pursued by the Government, and that no changes in the United Kingdom's current economic policies would be called for as a result of the draft decision. However, as has been the experience of successive Governments of this country, economic circumstances change—indeed they change over quite short periods—and with them change also the policies appropriate to those circumstances. The guidelines were drafted and discussed several months ago, and inevitably there are some points in them which were reasonable enough at the time but which may be less appropriate in present circumstances. One obvious example, to which I will come in more detail in a

moment, is the reference to short-term interest rates, at any rate as it applies to the United Kingdom. I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have put down an amendment, which has not been selected on this point.
It would be wrong to hold up the guidelines yet further in the Council and insist on redrafting to meet all such points; but when we come to lift our reserve it will be made clear that this is on the basis that while they were appropriate to the time when they were drafted and discussed they are no longer necessarily right in every particular in the changed circumstances since then. I think the House will agree that it will be helpful to have this on the record.
The guidelines are concerned with two principal objects: first, achieving a reduction in the balance of payments deficit, and, secondly, stepping up the fight against inflation. I will say a few words about what the guidelines have to say on both these points.
On page 20 the guidelines state:
Economic policy"—
in the United Kingdom—
should have the objective of ensuring that the total current account deficit, in 1975, will be less than £2,000 million. This amount would correspond to that part of the deficit which, in 1974, is attributable to dearer oil.
It has never been the policy of British Governments to express targets in this fashion. Their achievement is after all not wholly within our control. However, what the British Government are committing themselves to, and what we expect to achieve through my right hon. Friend's Budget, is, as he put it:
… "over time a large switch of resources out of domestic use and back into the balance of payments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 292]
I have noted that the latest forecasts by the NIESR include a deficit on current account of the balance of payments in 1975 of a little over £1,500 million, although I do not of course endorse this forecast.
The guidelines discuss the possible effects of action to reduce the balance of payments deficit on full employment and thus, for example, they say:
To stimulate exports, the economic policy of these countries"—
that is, the countries in deficit—
'will have to aim at reducing the growth of domestic demand to a rate considerably below


expansion of productive capacty by the end of 1974.
Although the guidelines foresee some risk that this
may in certain cases endanger full employment
they recognise that the achievement of full employment is also a priority objective, and, of course, the Government have emphasised the importance of full employment policies.
To ensure the maintenance of full employment it is important that the improvement in our current account deficit can be gradual and that meanwhile the deficit should be financed by borrowing. In his Budget Statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer emphasised his commitment to
the fullest possible use of the manpower and resources available to us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 290.]
The guidelines themselves make clear on page four that a solution to the balance of payments problem can only be
a gradual process of adjustment.
We accept the guidelines on the understanding that they do not derogate in any way from my right hon. Friend's commitment.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to have the hest of every conceivable world on this point. It would be helpful to the House if he could tell us where, through the emerging conflict between the full employment objective and the balance of payments objective, the Government's priority will lie?

Mr. Dell: The point which I am making, and which should be understood by the House, is that the economic policy of this country will be decided by the Government of this country. That is the simple point I am making. The commitments of the Government are the commitments which my right hon. Friend entered into at the time of his Budget Statement.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I understand my right hon. Friend to say that we accept the guidelines, but I thought that it was intended in the motion merely to take note of these various documents?

Mr. Dell: I was explaining to the House what the Government propose to

do, subject to the debate. We have come to the House to discuss these guidelines with hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, and the Government have expressed their view that they hope to be able, in the light of the debate. to give acceptance to these guidelines.
I have three documents to deal with and this will take me a little while. This is a short debate and I hope, therefore, that there will not be too many interventions.

Mr. Neil Marten: The point that I wish to raise must be confusing some hon. Members. If ultimately, as I understood the Minister to say, the economic policy of this country remains absolutely sovereign to this country, while I can understand that discussions within the Community are useful as a clearing house of different views, why on earth do they have to be reduced to a document like this, which in Article (1) says
The Member States shall pursue their economic policies in conformity"?
If that is so, surely it goes right against what the Minister is saying. Is it not better just to have discussions, without all this paper?

Mr. Dell: This is part of the Community's system of consultation in which this country takes part. But I have emphasised the terms on which we are accepting the guidelines which have been prepared in this case.
The guidelines also concern themselves with the financing of the balance of payments deficit. Thus, they state:
Interest rates should be maintained at high levels, as much to ensure an adequate level of real rates as to maintain a sufficient margin over the rates on the main foreign markets.
The guidelines to the United Kingdom say:
The balance of payments situation calls for short-term interest rates to be maintained at a level appreciably higher than those prevailing on international monetary markets.
This, too, was mentioned in my hon. Friends' amendment.
Since these guidelines were produced we have found it possible to reduce interest rates well below the unprecedented levels left to us by our predecessors. This, together with the rise in interest rates abroad, has meant that United Kingdom rates are now broadly in line with those in international


markets. We of course accept the thoughts underlying this part of the guidelines. We have to finance our balance of payments deficit. But very recent experience has shown that an appreciable differential is not essential in all circumstances.
The guidelines suggest that "additional measures" may be necessary in the budgetary field if during the coming months it appears that domestic demand is rising at a rate inconsistent with the required improvement in the current account of the balance of payments. Of course, taking account of the various objectives of economic policy, both those stated in the guidelines and those listed in my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement, particularly the need to maintain full employment as well as the need to rectify the balance of payments deficit, it could be necessary to take rectifying action in either direction, and it is in this sense that we understand this passage in the guidelines.
I come to the guidelines on inflation. The guidelines on page 21 emphasise the need
to lay the foundations of agreement on a concerted policy for prices and incomes.
The Government's policy on this is well known—that is, that an effective pay policy must rest on consent and on the principles of voluntary collective bargaining between employers and employees.
The guidelines also place great emphasis on monetary policy. On page 6 they say:
The restrictive line of monetary policy must therefore be maintained or even tightened.
The balance between fiscal and monetary measures in controlling an economy is always a matter of judgment, usually difficult judgment, and it will vary from one country to another. As regards the United Kingdom, it is enough to say that there has been a big change in monetary conditions this year, the extent of which was not fully apparent when the guidelines were drafted.
To achieve a slowing down in the expansion of money supply in 1974 has been a key element in the Budget strategy. There is the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement. There is the supplementary scheme introduced last December. M3 has grown only 4·5 per cent. between mid-December, when the

scheme was introduced, and mid-May compared with 11·5 per cent. in the previous five months. In the most recent months the rate of growth has been slower. We have extended the target rate of growth at the same level for the second half of the year. Thus, the guidelines are in line with United Kingdom monetary policy.
The general guidelines also include advice on the subject of energy and look to special efforts to achieve
a more rational use of energy and developing sources of energy capable of guaranteeing the Community a certain degree of autonomy in the longer term, at a reasonable cost.
I am glad that the emphasis on the need to ensure "autonomy" is subject to the qualification about "reasonable cost".

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Reverting to the subject of energy, would the Minister not agree that there has been a ministerial level discussion on EEC energy policy with a Commissioner, under which the proposal is that the EEC energy policy may control the rate of royalties, the rate of oil exploitation and other fundamentals such as purchasing power? This could ultimately mean that, whoever owned the oil in the North Sea, there would be a prohibition against selling it to America, which may be the best market.

Mr. Dell: There is no question of the EEC controlling this Government's decisions about the rate of royalty or the rate of depletion of North Sea oilfields.
Such an objective about energy policy as appears in the guidelines is not likely to be achieved in the medium term at any rate. However, we accept that there is a need to improve the Community's position in relation to dependence on external sources of energy, and we are taking part in the work which is being done on this in the Community. Our own position will, of course, be in due course guaranteed by developments proposed for the coal industry and for nuclear energy, and by the exploitation of North Sea oil.
I now turn to the draft Council decision on Practical Rules for Prior Notification of Exchange Rate Changes. This instrument is a consequence of the EEC Council Decision on the attainment of a high degree of convergence of the economic policies of the EEC member States,


which was adopted on 18th February 1974 and copies of which were communicated to the House. Article 7 of the decision reads:
Any Member State intending de jure or de facto to change, discontinue, or re-establish the parity, central rate or intervention points of its currency shall initiate a prior consultation. The consultation procedures, which shall be secret and urgent, shall take place in accordance with practical rules adopted by the Council after receiving an Opinion from the Monetary Committee.
The instrument, which has been examined by the Scrutiny Committee, contains these "practical rules". As I explained to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 27th June in a parliamentary answer, the members of the EEC Council have been asked to indicate in writing their agreement to these rules. The deadline for this was 10th June, but we have delayed our reply to allow time for parliamentary scrutiny.
The Government have no objection to these rules. They provide for EEC members to give advance notification of exchange rate changes to their partners, so that these partners can make known their views. It is sensible for the Community to have these consultation arrangements. If exchange rates changed abruptly or without warning, there could be adverse reactions by other members and serious disturbance in the markets. The notification procedures reduce the risk of this. The procedures are not new, but bring up to date arrangements in force for the last 10 years, to make them compatible with the currency regimes in operation today. They do not, however, apply to movements of exchange rates by currencies which are floating, as sterling is at present.
The arrangements for consultation do not in any way limit the ability of any EEC member State to make its own national decisions on exchange rate policy. The other members have the opportunity to comment. But they do not have a veto, nor can they delay matters. These procedures should, in fact, be reassuring to those who are concerned that the EEC might be moving dangerously fast towards depriving the members of national control over their own exchange rates.
There may be some question about the confidential nature of these rules and the

intention that they should not be published. There is nothing secret about the extent of the obligation to consult; that is plainly stated in the decision on convergence. The actual consultations, when they take place, will certainly be confidential, since otherwise member States would be obliged to reveal their intentions prematurely. Whether this means that the consultation rules should themselves be confidential is less obvious. But the other EEC member States wanted this, and we did not raise objection once we had made it clear that this instrument would be presented to Parliament for scrutiny.
I now turn to the Commission Communication on Urgent Economic and Monetary Measures. This communication from the Commission stems from concern about recent economic developments and their implications for the Community economies. It suggests that the existing framework for consultation on economic affairs between member States should be used to identify and examine areas where the possibility of concerted Community action would be worth considering further, in particular action against inflation and on various monetary issues.
The Commission communication is not secondary legislation. It is simply a submission from the Commission which draws Ministers' attention to certain problems and suggests that the scope for action in a Community framework should be examined further. It is in no way binding on member States. The document was circulated to Ministers at very short notice before the Council meeting on 6th June. At the meeting there was only a first exchange of views. This in no way commits United Kingdom Ministers. It was, however, agreed that officials should examine the suggestions put forward by the Commission. This work is still going on. The results are expected to be reported to the Council at its next meeting, on 15th July. But at this stage no detailed proposals are before Ministers.
The Government's attitude will obviously depend on the particular measures which are proposed. We would agree that it is important for all member States to contain inflation. However, given the wide variation in economic and social circumstances among the member States, no single solution can be offered which


will be appropriate for every State. Concerted action does not necessarily imply identical action. What is important is the need for policies which take account of the situation in other member States. Discussions in the Council provide an opportunity for this.
The last four paragraphs of the Commission document R/1474/74 contain proposals for action in the monetary field. These will be considered by the EEC's Monetary Committee before they come before the Council of Ministers on 15th July. The first two proposals regarding capital recycling and concerted borrowing go together, since they are both concerned with the problem of financing the large balance of payments deficits caused by the increased cost of imported oil.
The Commission advocates a discussion of measures which the EEC members could propose to the international community on improving economic and monetary co-operation, particularly in capital recycling. This has the support of the Government. World economic problems have been considered at several international meetings in recent weeks, such as the OECD Ministerial Council on 29th-30th May and the Committee of Twenty meeting on 12th-13th June, as well as frequent meetings of officials. Ideas for recycling the surpluses of the oil producers are under consideration in various bodies—the IMF, the OECD, the Energy Co-ordinating Group of the Washington Energy Conference and the United Nations.
The EEC has already made a useful contribution to these discussions in proposing a special fund for those developing countries in greatest need; the EEC would itself be ready to contribute one-sixth of such a fund, up to 500 million dollars. It is, therefore, valuable for the EEC Finance Ministers to consider what other subjects are suitable for common action which the EEC members could then introduce into wider international discussions.
But the Commission is also proposing a scheme whereby the EEC would help those of its own members with balance of payments problems. This would take the form of large special credits, raised by external borrowing jointly guaranteed by the EEC Governments, and made

available to member States in need which undertook to pursue acceptable policies to control inflation and maintain financial discipline. The stronger, more prosperous members of the EEC would be allowing their credit to be used for the benefit of those in need. Detailed proposals have yet to be made by the Commission.
This is an interesting proposal, particularly against the background of possible difficulties in handling recycling arrangements for oil surpluses and deficits. But there are also dangers. It would be essential for any E.E.C. scheme to be compatible with more widely-based recycling arrangements. There would be no advantage if the E.E.C.'s entry into the market made it more difficult for other countries to finance their deficits—or, indeed, for individual E.E.C. member States to borrow outside the collective arrangements. Furthermore, it is not clear what institution of the E.E.C. is equipped or could readily be created to raise and allocate this credit. I must emphasise that we would pay very close attention to any link which might be proposed between the credits made available to member States and requirements which might be imposed in relation to their economic policies.
The Commission's next suggestion is for a system of concerted floating involving not only those currencies still in the "snake" but also those outside it. It has asked for a decision on this by 31st July, but the Council of Ministers on 6th June rejected this. The Commission's ideas have yet to be explained in detail but at first sight they seem unrealistic. It was accepted at successive meetings of the Committee of Twenty that, at a time when so many currencies are subject to extraordinary pressures caused by the rise in oil and other commodity prices, widespread floating is inevitable. Guideline for floating currencies have been adopted. But the Commission seems to envisage that, somehow or other, the E.E.C. currencies should return to a fixed relationship to one another, while they float against other currencies—that is a revival of the "snake", even though under more flexible rules. If this is the intention, we have, at the very least, severe reservations.
The Commission intends to propose E.E.C. action to help Italy, linked to economic policy measures already agreed between the Commission and the Italian Government. This matter has been held


up, first by disputes over agricultural trade, which were resolved in the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) on 4th June, and later by the Italian political crisis. But so far the Italian Government have greatly welcomed their co-operation with the Commission, and have made it clear that they would like this formally sanctioned by the Council of Ministers, under Article 108(2) of the Treaty of Rome.
The difficult balance of payments situation in which Italy has found herself is well known. It is by no means impossible that the Italians will need further external assistance in support of the recovery which the measures they have recently been discussing would be designed to achieve. In this connection, the possibility of additional EEC assistance may be suggested. In that event, the United Kingdom would, of course, take part in the discussions as helpfully as possible, but we are bound to bear in mind the difficult financing problem which we ourselves face and the relatively greater external strength of other EEC countries.
It is to be expected that this Communication will lead to more definite Commission proposals which will be considered by the next Finance Ministers Council on 15th July. No specific proposals have yet been formulated, but we expect most of them to be in the form of non-binding recommendations. But the Commission may also propose executive decisions on measures to help Italy. There will clearly be no further opportunity for Parliament to debate a draft proposal before the 15th July Council, and almost certainly no opportunity for a further debate before the recess. The Government will, of course, take full account of any views expressed today. But I think the House will agree that it would be unconscionable to hold up practical decisions of this kind, such as a legislative step to help Italy, until after the recess, solely for this reason. Therefore, if the Council is faced with such a proposal, which the Government, after taking account of today's debate, would otherwise be ready to accept, the House will understand that we may need to agree to it even though the Scrutiny Committee and the House will not have had a chance to consider it.
Finally, I would like to thank the Scrutiny Committee for the speed with

which it has considered these documents and wish it well in its future work.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I am sure that we all wish to thank the Paymaster-General for the very full way in which he has opened the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman started by saying that in the course of the discussions on the European Communities Bill he moved certain amendments requiring the setting up of a Scrutiny Committee. At the time I resisted them, for reasons which I think subsequent events have justified—that it would be wrong by Act of Parliament to try to bind the House or subsequent Houses as to their procedure for dealing with these matters. We are free to adapt our procedures as we like from time to time. We are grateful to the Government for their emphasis—and Mr. Speaker made the same point in his introductory remarks—that we are feeling our way in these matters. No doubt, as further discussions take place we shall find between us the most effective ways of handling issues which are of great importance.
The debate enables us to consider documents which the Scutiny Committee considers raise questions of both principle and practice of such political importance that it recommends that they should be further considered by the House. I am sure that that is right. It is important to emphasise that it does not suggest that they raise legal or constitutional issues to which we should direct our attention.
If I may, I shall put forward four general points. First, we should take note that the guidelines for economic policy do not directly concern matters covered by United Kingdom law and do not require any changes in our law. They provide what the Government have rightly described in the explanatory memorandum as
a framework for parallel action by the member states …
Of course, the Paymaster-General has pointed out, as far as policy implications are concerned, that it is the Government's view that the recommendations for the United Kingdom are broadly in line with the policies already being pursued by the Government and that no changes in the United Kingdom's current economic


policies will be called for as a result of the draft decision. It is clear from the terms of the amendment which was not selected that that is a point of which due note has been taken.
In this House we remain entirely free to criticise the Government policies that we wish to criticise. It is equally true, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that we are free to pursue our own policies and to criticise proposals put forward by the Commission which may affect us in any way. I am sure that he was right to emphasise that there is no need to be afraid of the reference to a Community decision being taken in due course by the Council of Ministers on the basis of this document or—

Mr. Julius Silverman: If we are free to pursue our own policies after the adoption of a directive or regulation, what on earth is the meaning of this piece of paper?

Mr. Rippon: We kept on coming back to this point in the debates that we had on the European Communities Bill. The sovereignty of Parliament is not affected in these matters in the way that the Paymaster-General has explained. We are free, in the last resort, to pursue our own policies as sovereign nations. What we are trying to do as members of the Community is to concert our action wherever we can on policies that are to our mutual advantage. Indeed, our freedom of action in these matters is safeguarded by the treaties themselves, which determine the terms of our membership of the Community.
I make the important point that our position is safeguarded by the terms of the treaties. Article 6(1) of the Treaty of Rome provides that
Member States shall, in close co-operation with the institutions of the Community, co-ordinate their respective economic policies to the extent necessary to attain the objectives of this Treaty.
but Article 6(2) provides that
The institutions of the Community shall take care not to prejudice the internal and external financial stability of the Member States.
That provision is further reinforced by Articles 108 and 109. It was under Article 109, in the first instance, and subsequently under Article 108, that the

Italian Government quite constitutionally took their unilateral action. What is to be hoped as a result of these discussions taking place in the Community is that there will be consultation about the effects of one Government's actions upon the economies and the lives of the other member States. That is further reinforced by the exchange of letters which took place between myself and the then Chairman of the Council of Ministers on 22nd January 1972, which is part of the body of the treaties, protocols and ancillary documents.

Mr. Marten: My right hon. and learned Friend did not answer the question put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman). I put the matter in this way. My right hon. and learned Friend will see that Article I of the memorandum says:
… the Member States are to pursue their economic policies in 1974 in conformity with the general guidelines …
We have already broken the guidelines on interest rates, as the Paymaster-General said, which we are supposed to keep at a level appreciably higher than international rates. What is this piece of paper all about if we are free to break the conditions of Article 1, while that article says that we must not break it?

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend once again has shown that he does not fully comprehend either the principles of the treaties or the procedures of this House. He has said that we are in breach of a decision. Of course we are not. This is a draft, and this is what we are discussing. Let us look at the guidelines. Provided that the House is satisfied on political grounds that what the Government are proposing is in accordance with their own policy, which is obviously a matter of controversy, all well and good. If it is felt by this House at any time that the Government are pursuing a policy either contrary to the declared view of the House or contrary to the wishes of the House, objection can be taken. I would have thought that there could be no complaint about an impingement on that procedure or on the sovereignty of Parliament, as we are given an opportunity to discuss these matters in advance.
We are safeguarded by the treaties. Surely the House should be agreed about the overall priority for all member States


to try to concert their action to avoid inflation. I would not have thought that there would have been any disagreement about that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: By what means?

Mr. Rippon: By such means as is now proposed by the Commission, which puts forward proposals to the Council of Ministers as to how we should concert our action on an international scale. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's general economic and fiscal policies may be the subject of great dispute, but I would have thought that no one would dissent from his recent declaration of the need for international co-operation in the world inflationary situation. It is equally clear that a world crisis of cataclysmic proportions could result if individual countries sought to solve their balance of payments and other economic problems by narrow nationalistic measures. It must be right that there should be a degree of consultation between members of the Community.

Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really understand what he is saying?

Mr. Marten: No—most unlikely.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to tell the House that as a result of these guidelines, and by adopting them or taking note of them, we shall be in the position of having to adopt in a general sort of way guidelines as to our general economic policy. Is not that more or less what we are being told when we hear all the talk about the national interest, fighting inflation, and adopting policies that must be in accord with the present talk about coalitions? The extension of what the right hon. and learned Gentle man is now saying is that not only must we abide by coalition views as to the fighting of inflation in the national interest, but that the coalition extends even further, and must be in accord with the Nine-nation views as set out in the guidelines.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman intervened to speak about a coalition. I have been trying to explain that these procedures do not impinge on parliamentary sovereignty, and that they give us

an opportunity to question Government policy at an early stage. If Governments agree between each other on action which they can take together, I would have thought that it would be completely commendable, if the House disagreed with the action that its own Government decided to take, that it should be able to say so in advance.
There is a third general proposition to which the House and even the Paymaster-General has not given sufficient attention. The entire guideline operation is a joint Community effort. It is designed to ensure that the economic policies of all member States are coherent and not contradictory. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to express our views about the effect both on us and upon the Community, on Europe generally, and on the international scene of actions which other Governments of the Community may be taking.
Obviously we were affected to some extent by the action which the Italian Government took, just as were our partners. It must therefore be to our advantage to have the sort of discussions which can eliminate the kind of threats which forced the Italian Government to take action and to ensure that if a Community Government act, they will act in concert with other Community Governments after such consultations as may be appropriate in all the circumstances.
I think that we should, in looking at these guidelines, pay some attention not merely to those parts which impinge on our own policy but at what the Commission and, in due course, the Council of Ministers, may have to say about the way in which other members of the Community ought to behave.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not a good deal of the argument about potential conflict between guidelines such as these and the sovereignty of the House remarkably short-sighted, in historical terms? Is it not the case that in the time of the last Labour Government we were not members of the EEC but were receiving three-monthly visits from Mr. Richard Goode, of the International Monetary Fund? It is true that the Government then could propose what policy they chose to this House, but it had to be approved by Mr. Goode. There is nothing new about this procedure.

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend is right. A lot of the discussion about sovereignty is unreal. We are stronger, and our sovereignty may well be stronger as my hon. Friend implies, if we are working together with other people, and to the extent that we pool our sovereignty for the common good.
There is another aspect which is novel and which we should welcome. We are debating a number of matters before the Government have come to a final decision. We are debating them in the course of international negotiation. That is, to some extent, a reinforcement of parliamentary interest and influence over policy-making in areas, particularly as they affect exchange control, which have normally been the preserve of the executive. Normally, Parliament is informed about these international agreements after they have been entered into. This sort of discussion has not taken place in the past. Thus, as the Leader of the House has said, we are to some extent feeling our way in dealing with issues which arise in relation to these documents.
I accept that the Government are willing to consider how these procedures can be adapted. Normally, decisions of this kind, taken internationally, are debated ex post facto. This is one of the problems which arose out of the negotiations and the presentation of the treaty to Parliament. It was a prerogative act to sign the treaty. Then we had the processes of ratification and the changes in domestic law required in order to give effect to the obligations under the treaty. But we had a good deal of trouble at the time, explaining what has been our historical constitutional practice.
Therefore, this sort of debate is an innovation which surely, in the long run, will tend to strengthen parliamentary control. To some extent, when dealing with such things as exchange rate changes a degree of secrecy is inevitable. But it is a step forward, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the procedures for consultation should not be in themselves secret, and that it should be made clear and generally understood between us, as members of the Community, that we will, within the practical and sensible concepts of the guidelines, consult each other as to the effect of what we are proposing to do.
I turn now to the question of monetary matters generally. It is helpful to have heard, in the context of these guidelines, what the Government think about monetary policy generally, and in particular about the snake in the tunnel. The right hon. Gentleman may regard it as satisfactory that the proposals now appear in a more flexible guise, but I can well understand the reservations he has expressed on this occasion about the Government's policy. Matters such as this, raised in documents of this kind, impinge upon high-level monetary policies which can be settled only by Governments, and at this stage we are not prejudiced by what is in the documents. It was Confucius who said that the snake in the bamboo is still a wriggling animal. I can well understand the Government's reservations on these issues.
I would like to revert now to what is the major point—that, in future, there will be much more flexibility in parliamentary discussion, not just of the guidelines of economic policy for 1974 but for all the years hereafter. Here it seems to me that we have an opportunity not only of influencing Government policy before decisions are made but of doing so—and this is most important—in a European context. Thereby, we can and should look at the exercise of United Kingdom policies in conjunction with the policies of the other member States in general, and we can and should also discuss the guidelines of economic policy for the Community as a whole against the background of world economic circumstances, because clearly—and this is brought out in the documents—whatever we may agree between ourselves within the Community cannot be considered in isolation but must bear on all views going from Community members to such bodies as the OECD and the IMF.
The guidelines themselves are brought forward in accordance within the provisions of Article 103 of the Treaty of Rome. Again, it is worth looking specifically at the treaty. Article 103(1) says that
Member States shall regard their conjunctured policies as a matter of common concern. They shall consult each other and the Commission on the measures to be taken in the light of the prevailing circumstances.
Paragraph 2 of the article states that
Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in this Treaty, the Council may,


acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, decide upon the measures appropriate to the situation".
So it is clear that it is the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously, which must eventually decide upon any measures which may be appropriate to the situation.
The final drafts of the documents—and there have been a number of drafts—illustrate the way in which policies of this kind are built up by consultation not only between the Governments themselves but with the national parliaments and with the European Parliament, in which I hope all parties in this House will eventually be represented.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to persuade the House in a conciliatory way, but will not he recognise that the Common Market is in an unholy mess at the moment, and might do itself a good turn by suggesting to the member nations that willingness to consult, to reduce the number of regulations and to have a period of pause might make some sense? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not try to persuade us that we have a discretion when it is clear that a decision has been made and it is in the form of a directive to this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking nonsense, and he knows it.

Mr. Rippon: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is nonsense. A decision has not been made. A decision can only be made by the Council of Ministers. What the hon. Gentleman is looking at is a draft. Of course, the draft, if approved by the Council of Ministers, will use those words and will bind the member Governments—

Mr. Leadbitter: Parliament has no say.

Mr. Rippon: —to the extent that they have all agreed. This procedure enables us to say to the Government, "We do not wish you to agree to this policy."

Mr. Leadbitter: Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop being a hypocrite?

Mr. Rippon: Why does not the hon. Gentleman stop being abusive and try to discuss this matter on its merits? He should not try to twist the facts of the constitutional and legal position. We are

not, in this country, in such good shape that we can talk about other people being in a mess. We in the Western world, including the United Kingdom, are facing grave economic and monetary crises. Surely all hon. Members accept the necessity for concerting, wherever we can, the measures we take to try to deal with the problems which affect us all so deeply.
Of course, hon. Members on both sides of the House may query how far Government policies are in line with the Directive. They may query, too, how far they support the policies which the Directive appears to advocate. Certainly there would be general concern about the extent to which full employment might be endangered, and such matters. There are lots of matters—this may not be the most appropriate moment to discuss them in detail—set out in the draft, dealing with the United Kingdom, about which hon. Members are entitled to be concerned.
On page 20 it is said that:
From now on, economic policy should have the objective of ensuring that the total current account deficit, in 1975, will be less than £2,000 million.
That may seem a reasonable objective but I would like to know how it is to be attained. On page 21 there is a new paragraph, to which the Paymaster-General referred, which has been added, and in which it is said:
An essential condition for avoiding an abrupt halt in the expansion of internal demand in the short term, is to lay the foundations of an agreeemnt on a concerted prices and incomes policy; such an agreement would be all the more desirable in that it would promote sufficient development of industrial investment to stimulate a strong flow of exports and so to maintain a high level of employment in the longer term.
As the Paymaster-General said, that is an important statement of policy but it does not prejudice the Government as to the ways in which they get that concerted agreement.
It is important to recognise that there is need for such an agreement, whether on a voluntary or other basis. On page 22 it is said:
within the overall framework of such action, there are grounds for applying any restriction on bank lending selectively, especially in relation to those small and medium-sized businesses which have been most affected by events at the beginning of the year, and also where exports are concerned.


This is in relation to monetary action. I, for one, am grateful that the Government's general policy is to be in line with those proposals.
Hon. Members may also be concerned about the declaration that:
the balance of payments situation calls for short-term interest rates to be maintained at a level appreciably higher than those prevailing on international monetary markets.
Here we may raise the question whether our policy within the Community can be concerted so that we avoid competition in interest rates, so that we ensure that the French Government consult widely before raising their rates in a way which might force us to follow suit. Clearly, there are major matters of political concern, as the Scrutiny Committee has said, which it is right this House should debate before decisions are taken by the Government in the Council of Ministers.
We ought to concentrate on that and not let the issue be clouded, as I know some hon. Members wished it to be clouded for a long time, by quite fallacious arguments about the effects of the treaty, its effects on Parliament, and the Government's ability to decide the policy of the country and put it before Parliament. Generally, we ought as a House to accept that the consideration of policy by all the members of the Community, acting together in a European context, must be not only in their interests but in ours as well.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice spoken about pooling sovereignty. Does he not admit that if we have to accept these conditions sovereignty goes, because sovereignty has been described by political scientists throughout the ages as the power to give orders to all and receive them from none? Once we abrogate that power we abrogate sovereignty. There cannot be a pooling of sovereignty, any more than there can be a God-fearing atheist.

Mr. Rippon: I do not know if it is helpful to pursue the argument. Clearly, there is a difference of view about the definition of parliamentary sovereignty. All I have ever asserted is that the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament is protected. This is true. Between sovereign States we are only affected to the degree

to which we, through our Government and Parliament, agree to be bound. This is no different from the position under the North Atlantic Treaty, the Brussels Treaty or other treaties into which we have entered. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will not accept that from me, I can only refer them to the splendid passages in which this is made clear in the Prime Minister's speech in May 1967, when, with the whole-hearted support of the House, he made our application to join the Community.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General will welcome this debate because, as he said, he proposed a procedure not so different from this during the debates on the European Communities Bill. What puzzled me a little about his speech today was that he first of all appeared to accept these guidelines. He said that he broadly accepted them, and then he told us in detail why he did not accept quite a number of them.
The House should understand, and I do not think that the two speeches we have so far heard have done so, the nature of these guidelines or instructions—or should I call them decrees?—which we are receiving from Brussels. They are not just pious sermons addressed to us, such as we have had, from, for instance, OECD. Whether or not they were of any value, they certainly did no harm because we did not have to heed them if we did not wish to. These are draft instruments which seek to become EEC Council decisions which are then legally binding in the courts of the EEC and in British courts and enforceable like any legislation enacted in this House. I must remind the House that a decision, according to Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome,
shall be binding in every respect for the addresses named therein.
My right hon. Friend quoted these words, but he said that he was not really in any danger of being hauled before the courts. He gave us absolutely no reason why that was so. It is not good enough, constitutionally, simply to say that the Treaty of Rome says that these decisions are binding but then to add blithely that we do not propose to take any notice of them. Either they are binding, in which case our sovereignty is clearly infringed,


or, if they are not binding, this is a great mass of paper and an extraordinary waste of time. It is clear from the Treaty of Rome that, in that sense, they are binding.
We should therefore consider what all this means as a basic constitutional issue. The 1971 White Paper published by the present Leader of the Opposition told the House and the public that if we joined the EEC, there would be
no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty.
The Labour Party election manifesto of February this year, to which the Government are pledged so faithfully in every way, pledged the Labour Party to
The retention by Parliament of those powers over the British economy needed to pursue effective, regional, industrial and fiscal policies.
Yet here we are being asked to accept a whole series of legal decisions which, claiming the force of law, lay down the main lines, in considerable detail, of economic, monetary and budgetary policy in Britain for 1974.
Let me quote from one or two passages from these remarkable documents. The first, on general economic guidelines, starts by laying down—and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) ignored this:
The Member States shall pursue their economic policies in conformity with the guidelines which are specified".
Amid a number of pious platitudes about avoiding inflation and so forth, to which no objection can be taken, the document slips in the following instruction to British Ministers:
The fulfilment of these requirements may in certain cases endanger full employment.
It goes on—and this is a legal instruction:
The number of workers in danger of having to change their jobs will be noticeably higher than in the past".
Then again:
The restrictive line of monetary policy must therefore be maintained or even tightened … Interest rates should be maintained at high levels.
Then again:
This expected deterioration in the budgetary position will have to be curbed either by cutting back the growth of expenditure or by increasing taxes.
Is that broadly in line with the Government's policy, as my right hon. Friend

told us tonight? We should be told before we finally part with these decisions.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It certainly should be.

Mr. Jay: That is another matter. I want to know whether it is.
We then have the following instructions addressed specifically to the United Kingdom:
As for budgetary policy, measures to moderate domestic demand should be introduced following a return to normal economic activity.
Then again:
the balance of payments situation calls for short-term interest rates to be maintained at a level appreciably higher than those prevailing on international monetary markets.
My right hon. Friend appeared to say that he hoped that those words would be revised, but those are the words in the document which is before the House.
Then we have the Consultative Document R1474/74 which, contrary to the implication we had from the Front Benches, is designed to lead up to another Council decision. This document, dated 5th June, is intended for a Council decision to take place in ultra-restricted session. That is remarkable in itself. It purports to be legislation, but it is to be kept absolutely secret, at any rate till the very last moment. It is interesting to see how legislation is conducted in Brussels. The document says this:
The Commission will be submitting a draft decision … without delay. The Commission proposes that the Council declare in favour of the principle of a system of concerted floating of the Community currencies floating freely and those inside the European 'snake', the main feature of which would be concertation"—
a remarkable word—
on a corpus of measures (monetary policy, interest rates, capital movements) without which such a move would be meaningless.
It is then proposed that the Council should adopt these policies as a Council decision.
Do the Government accept all that? Is it all in line with their present thinking? We should be told that tonight.
Closely allied to that instrument is the even more remarkable draft instrument which is described as COM(74)696, which the Scrutiny Committee has also recommended should be examined by the


House. That draft decision would bind any member country to consult the Commission and other EEC members before altering the exchange rate of its currency. The Commission in its explanation of the draft says that
given the necessity for this procedure to remain secret, the Commission believes that the decision should not be published.
In this case there is to be a legislative act, and the Commission's view was at one time that it should not even be published after it had been adopted by the Council.
I find that even more extraordinary. This is not just confidential consultation between Governments, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham implied. It purports to be legislation binding on member countries. It is characteristic of the authoritarian attitude of the Commission that it should wish to keep such legislation entirely secret. I can see no practical point in secrecy in this case. Of course, consultations on a particular change in exchange rates would have to remain secret, but there is no reason why a general commitment to consult should be kept secret.
Opinions may differ whether any or all of these policies are desirable or undesirable at a particular moment, but what is surely beyond dispute is that they involve major issues of basic economic policy. To accept the EEC Council's power to dictate these would, first, be a clear breach of the undertaking in the 1971 White Paper that there would be
no question of the erosion of essential national sovereignty.
Secondly, if the Government were to accept them—and I gather they partly do and partly do not—it would be an equally clear breach of the Labour Party's 1974 election manifesto which pledged the Government to
The retention by Parliament of those powers over the British economy needed to pursue effective, regional, industrial and fiscal policies.
To accept these instructions or decrees would be a flagrant breach of that election pledge, and there is, therefore, a clear duty on Parliament to make that clear and to reject them.
As I see it, the whole claim of the EEC Council and Commission to legislate on these matters is so open a breach of those pledges that the claim must be equally

rejected by the British Parliament. If the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham says that the British Parliament's sovereignty has been in no way infringed, we clearly have the right to reject that claim.
Further, in view of these breaches of faith, and the explicit declaration by Labour Party spokesmen during the debates on the European Communities Bill that the Labour Party did not accept the Treaty of Accession as binding, and in view of the irregularities committed by the previous Government in forcing that Bill through the House, I for one do not accept the Treaty of Accession or the Treaty of Rome as having any constitutional validity in this country till a referendum has settled the issue.
I therefore hope that hon. Members of this House tonight will assert on behalf of the British people this Parliament's democratic right by making clear to the Government that it really has no authority to accept all these decrees and instruction or the implied claim of the whole Brussels' machine to do what it is really doing—dictating the internal economic policies of this country.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I greatly welcome the opportunity provided by this debate because, as I believe the House knows, I have always, whilst I have been here, been a great believer in the need for the House to debate the matters which were handled through the institutions of the Communities, much as I am myself in favour of those institutions and their objectives. Tonight I should like to say some words, first, regarding the central points which the committee on these subjects dwelt on. I have no possible remit, as I recognise, to speak for the Committee and I do not intend to do so, though there are many members of the Committee present tonight who will speak for themselves.
It is perhaps worth drawing the attention of the House to the central point which the Committee felt about the documents that we are now debating. It was felt that they were, beyond all question, important and I feel that beyond all question they are. They deal with matters of absolutely essential moment to the conduct of the economic affairs of this country, and even if they raised little or no questions in dispute between the two


sides of the House, or between individual Members, they would still be of prime importance to us all—so the Committee thought they were very important.
The Committee also felt that they raised major political issues. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raised a number of points which concern him. Perhaps I may refer to one or two others. The explanatory memorandum which accompanied the first document that we are considering says:
This draft decision provides that the member States are to pursue their economic policies in 1974 in conformity with the general guidelines set out in the Annex to the Draft Decision".
I point out to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) that his explanatory memorandum is not a Community document, so he is saying that the draft Decision, if adopted, would provide those directive guidelines. It is important to make that point, on which the Committee dwelt. Later in the same paper we read that:
The recommendations for the United Kingdom are broadly in line with the policies already being pursued by the Government. No changes in the United Kingdom's current economic policies will be called for as a result of the draft Decision.
That raised some serious problems for the Committee, because there are in the guidelines one or two points which seem hard to reconcile with the current economic policies of the Government. I refer to Article 513, on page 6, which says that
In the second group of countries the constraints imposed by the balance of payments situation and by the vigorous upsurge in costs and prices call for policies to restructure demand aimed at improving the external balance. To stimulate exports the economic policy of these countries will have to aim at reducing the growth of domestic demand to a rate considerably below the expansion of productive capacity by the end of 1974.
Going on to refer to a still later document, dated 31st May 1974—R/1253/1/74 and Addendum, page 2—the House can read:
The essential problem in the next few years is to maintain a substantially slower growth rate in private expenditure than in gross national product.
Is it possible, compatible with the policies of the Government in economic terms, that we should be seeking at the moment to bring private expenditure lower than the growth in the gross national product? If so, I would draw

the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he is making a positive effort, within his economic policy, to reduce private expenditure and private consumption. I do not think that this is compatible with the economic policies he is pursuing. The Committee felt bound to say that the matters raised were of considerable political importance.
I refer now to the second document—COM (74) 696—which creates some dilemma, since it is marked "Secret" but has already been dealt with by others. The consequences of the document may well be secret, but the document itself crosses no particular borderline of confidentiality, and in any case has been available from the Vote Office.
The third document—R/1474/74—is a a very wide-ranging one. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has told the House that this gives rise to a further proposal, which will now be before the Council of Finance Ministers on 15th July. It is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to reconcile what he said on this point with undertakings given by his right hon. and hon. Friends that no matter would be cleared through the Council of Ministers which had not been subject to debate in the House, if debate was called for. Perhaps the content of today's debate will adequately deal with the problem. Again, some fairly trenchant statements are made in Document R/1474/74. It says that
The Commission proposes that the Council declare in favour of the principle of a system of concerted floating of the Community currencies floating freely
with consequences in relation to monetary policy, interest rates, and the like. In all three documents the Committee found issues of considerable political importance and obviously of general importance, though not raising matters of legal concern.

Mr. Marten: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He was an enthusiastic Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. The whole object of referring reports by that Committee to the House surely is that the House should decide something specifically and express a view. But the motion before us is a "take note" motion, and we have no power to decide anything tonight. It is in that respect that this debate is likely to fall down, and that was not the real intention of the Committee.

Mr. Davies: I am sure my hon. Friend will raise that matter in the appropriate quarter, but certainly not with me.
I should like to turn away from the matters of specific concern expressed by the Committee to some personal views which I hold on this subject. I believe that there is a basic flaw in much of the reasoning which takes place. It seems to be ignored that the whole purpose of the Community is to work for the benefit of its members. It does not wish to indulge in bureaucratic or autocratic control of activities. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to try to assist in the affairs of its members to meet their difficulties.
When we see what is happening in Italy we surely must appreciate to what degree the Commission and the Council of Ministers are seeking to work to its aid. It would be wrong to base the argument on an incorrect presumption. The correct presumption is that the Community as a whole, within the framework of the guidelines and the series of directives and decisions, seeks ardently to help members towards a more successful future. Everything should be seen in that context. It is wrong to see it in any other way.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that every Government try to assist the people in their country, but the directives are issued in the form of binding laws.

Mr. Davies: The whole purpose of these measures is to ensure that there is a means of effective discussion with a view to ensuring that individual member countries shall not by their actions undermine the livelihood and expectations of others. That is an exceedingly valuable activity. If the hon. Gentleman doubts it, let me assure him that the possibility of any member country on its own and without damaging its neighbours finding its way through the present economic difficulties is so remote as to be unworthy of discussion. We are, whether we like it or not, closely involved and intertwined with our neighbouring countries. We must find our way together through the minefield of difficulties that confronts us.
The second aspect of the problem to which I wish to draw attention is that the Community is by no means an organisation which can only listen to problems of its members and try to recon-

cile them, but it seeks to be creative. Reference has been made to the fact that the change of resource allocation worldwide faces us as a tremendous future problem. Various figures have been put showing the extent to which there has been a transfer out of Western industrialised countries into the Middle East. The most recent estimates I have seen show that this year a figure of about one hundred billion dollars will move into the hands of the Middle Eastern oil-producing countries.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: Let me finish this passage. I want to be brief. These are moneys which are being withdrawn from our economies. If they are to be drawn out of the area of investment, there is a paramount need to find some means of pulling back some of these resources into investment, both social and industrial. That aim surely must be something to support rather than to reject. I do not understand the purpose of seeking to withdraw from arrangements which are part of the salvation we need for our future as a country.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give way. He said he would give way when he finished the sentence.

Mr. Davies: I did not. I said that I wished to be brief, and I do. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is always given to ribaldry about the most serious subjects. I have noticed it for many months.
We are faced with a subject of the utmost importance and difficulty.
I have no comment to make on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and his views on the form of the debate. I think the occasion of the debate should be taken advantage of to press on the Government the importance of these matters and the varying views of the House about them. I consider that the measures proposed are salutary and advantageous and should be actively pursued.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I have listened to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) with very great


interest. He occupied important ministerial positions in the last Government. He will be remembered above all for his "lame duck" statement. But I thought that by now even he would be able to agree that the biggest lame duck of all is the Common Market. Our entry to the EEC has had a disastrous effect on the British economy. As an important member of the last Government, he bears a fair measure of responsibility for our present position.
I have a document issued in Brussels on 31st May reference R/1253/1/74, the annexe of which lays down general guidelines to member States on their economic policies. First, it makes the point that in
restructuring their economies
they should
adapt them to the changes in the external situation";
secondly,
to preserve purchasing power";
thirdly,
achieving a reduction in the balance of payments deficit; in the case of those countries whose external situation had deteriorated appreciably even before the crisis, this reduction must be substantial.
I have quoted those points as I am concerned about the effect those measures will have, because the document goes on to say:
The fulfilment of these requirements may in certain cases endanger full employment.
That is something I cannot accept. I represent a part of the United Kingdom which has had a considerable experience of unemployment. One of the principal reasons for the growth of the Labour Party was the combating of unemployment and the ravages of unbridled capitalism.
Speaking of full employment the document goes on to say:
in the current situation it cannot be achieved by a general stimulation of nominal internal demand".
We need to ask ourselves what is meant by that statement. So far as my elementary knowledge of economics goes, it means that there should be no pump priming to keep the wheels of industry turning and our people in useful employment, because unemployment in economic terms is waste, like leaving a tap running.
On the front page of the Financial Times of 2nd July 1974 one reads the following headline to an article by Michael Blanden:
Further sharp drop in the volume of retail sales.
The article goes on to point out the effects of this sales resistance. The answer must obviously eventually lie in short-time working and redundancies in our factories and workshops. If that is the best advice that the bureaucrats from Brussels can give us at the present time I can say that the people I represent want no part of it.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has my hon. Friend noticed that what he supposes is confirmed on page 3, which says:
The number of workers likely to be forced to change their jobs will be noticeably higher than in the past.
I am afraid that his fears are confirmed by this document.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is right, and of, course, the policy being advocated is no more than outmoded economic dogma. It was blown to smithereens by Keynes way back in the 1930s. Even before Keynes, it was proved that policies of this kind solved nothing. Nevertheless, I do not wish to underestimate the second point made in the document about the evils of inflation.
The advocates of British entry into the Common Market again must bear some responsibility for this. There is, for instance, the cost of food. Before coming to this House, I spent a little time in the trade union movement, where I got some idea of the way that wage claims came about. The housewife goes home moaning to her husband. He in turn goes to his fellows in the factory and to his trade union branch meeting. Eventually, a wage claim materialises as a result.
In this country we have always enjoyed the benefits of cheap food. Today we find that lamb is coming here from New Zealand bearing a tax because it has been exported to Britain, whereas it has the benefit of a subsidy when it is exported to other countries. A similar pattern can be observed in this ridiculous policy of denaturing food, turning it blue,


green and so on at a cost of millions of pounds. We also remember the famous incident of the thousands of pounds of butter sold to Russia for 7p a lb. Now we have the latest scandal associated with the stocks of beef.
I should have thought that the time of the bureaucrats in Brussels would be better spent formulating some means of getting rid of the common agricultural policy. For our country and for our Labour Government, this should be one of the principal aims of the renegotiations rather than toying with the edges of the policy. Certainly it has resulted in a lower standard of living for the British people.
Then we have the vexed question of the balance of payments and the balance of trade. We have a huge balance of trade deficit with the Common Market countries. For the last financial year, it was £1,600 million. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) needs reminding that before we went into the Common Market, when the Labour Government left office in June 1970, there was a fabulous balance of payments surplus. This again is an indication of the effects on the British economy of entry into the Common Market.
We know that the Conservative Party wishes to have regard to the views of the British people in these matters. The Leader of the Opposition used to speak of the "full-hearted consent" of Parliament and the people. That went by the board.
Looking to the future, presumably there will be a General Election before the negotiations are concluded and that the referendum will be held after the election. The only way for the people of Britain to ensure that they are consulted on this vital issue is to vote Labour at the forthcoming General Election.
My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench must not fudge the issue. The renegotiations must be fundamental. The common agricultural policy has been nothing short of a disaster, and we are faced with the vital question of sovereignty. I do not believe that the British people are prepared to surrender their sovereignty to the Brussels bureaucrats. Frankly, one cannot help but get a bit

concerned about the honeyed terms occasionally used by the Foreign Secretary in his dealings with Europe. I read extracts of his speech at the Herbert Morrison Memorial lecture last night in London. That was typical of what seems to be going on now.
The renegotiations must not be allowed to drag on. The referendum should be held between six and 12 months from now. The issue could then finally be decided by the democratic will of the British people. I certainly hope that tonight the House will refuse to take note of these documents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House of the importance of the debate and the fact that time is running out. It would be helpful if speeches could be restricted to 10 minutes.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Ian Stewart: After the broad sweep of some of the speeches so far I find it a little difficult to move from the general to the particular. Many hon. Members have so far been concerned with the way in which Parliament should react to this type of document, but I want to deal with a specific point. It is timely that the House should consider carefully, in the context of the guidelines and the communication before us, recent events in the currency markets and the foreign exchange markets of Europe.
I do not need to make a special plea that this is relevant to the subject we are discussing because the question of the cohesion of financial markets in the countries of Europe, which are mostly members of the Community, is central to the whole concept of concertation of economic and monetary policy which we are discussing.
Recent events have so far destabilised the existing system as we know it that we may have to rethink, nationally, internationally and within the Community, the way in which we regard exchange rate policy from hereon in order to achieve the original objectives of the Community. There is no doubt that with the change from a fixed exchange rate to a floating rate system the whole of the ground rules for the operation of international financial transactions have changed, and it is only now, at an interval of about two years


or so, that in the backwash of this change some of the results are coming to be seen.
Everyone will have read of the way in which a number of banking houses in Europe and the United States have been caught for large sums of money on exchange losses. It might be profitable briefly to consider the ways in which this arose, because it is imperative for the stability of the international monetary system that ways be found to prevent this type of occurrence in the future.
During the middle months of 1973, under the system of floating exchange rates the relative value of a dollar in terms of the deutschemark changed from DM3·15 to DM2·25—a change of about 30 per cent. in a matter of a few months. That sort of change was quite outside the experience of operators functioning in those markets. A very large amount of speculation took place, and a large amount of that speculation was proved to be wildly wrong in its conception and expectation of the way in which exchange rates would subsequently settle down.
The difficulty has arisen here because the controls and the systems of information, even within well-organised financial communities such as the City of London, were never designed to cope with a system in which exchange rates could move so rapidly and so violently. What has happened is that the old system is still applying, but it no longer provides the right information or controls. I shall not bore the House with the details of the sort of forms and information which have to be supplied to the Bank of England, but, broadly, the effect of them is that information which is provided relates to commitments between sterling and the totality, in a net form, of all other commitments in other currencies. It does not provide any direct information of positions of individual banks or the banking community as a whole between one third-party currency and another.
As a result of this, there have been very large speculative positions built up in all countries—and we are not immune from this—which have had such serious repercussions on banking houses within the Community that some, such as Herstatt in Germany, have collapsed because of the extent of the losses they have made through unwise speculation. This would not matter if it were only imprudent banking houses which were to

suffer, but there will undoubtedly be a chain reaction.
One may take a certain view. As a banker, I must declare an interest in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is very proper to declare an interest, but I declare it more in a professional sense, to put my remarks in context, than in any obvious personal connection with this situation. I hope, after all, that it is one of the values of the House that hon. Members should not feel inhibited in talking about subjects about which they actually know.
The situation which has developed is that all small banks, more or less, within the European countries could be at risk. The situation which occurred with Herstatt could be repeated. I apologise for the technicalities of this matter, but one cannot understand the position unless one understands the technicalities. With a transaction between two countries in Europe, one settles on the same day at broadly the same time, and there is no exposure between a purchase and a sale; but if one deals between dollars and a European currency, one cannot deliver the dollars in New York till after the transaction in Europe has been completed, because of the time lag. This is of importance to bankers, not only in Europe but also in the United States. Looking farther afield, the Japanese markets are closed before European markets are open.
If this situation of exposure is not controlled there will be failures on a scale which is unprecedented in post-war experience and which will completely frustrate attempts at the concertation of economic, monetary or any other sort of policy between member States.
Therefore, the point that I particularly ask the House to take into account when considering these documents is that there needs to be concerted action between each country of the Community—led, I hope, by the British Government and the Governor of our central bank—to ensure that rigid standards are imposed which not only deal, as they have historically, with its own domestic currency in relation to the totality of all others, but which enable monetary authorities to keep some sort of control of the open speculative positions between others' currencies. Heaven knows, we ought to be interested. If third-party countries speculate in sterling


against another currency it is important that our monetary system should not be thrown into chaos by a serious deterioration of the position.

Mr. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this document before us now, or the draft document 1355, achieves these objectives in any way?

Mr. Stewart: I am not saying that the document as such achieves any of these objectives. The documents are concerned with subjects such as co-operation on exchange rates and monetary policy.
Recently a fundamental change has taken place in international markets which will need to be taken into account not only by the Community as a whole but by all countries within it, including ourselves. This poses a dilemma for the Community regarding its policy. In the guidelines document it has divided the countries of the Community into one group with a strong balance of payments situation and another group with a weak balance of payments situation. These more or less coincide with the stronger countries having their currencies within the snake and the weaker countries, of which we are one, being the floaters.
If the Community is to be constructive in future in its relations with member States regarding monetary policy as it affects exchange rates, it will have to take account of a completely new dimension. Probably it is to some extent still affected by past experience in the objective of economic and monetary union, but there may come a point—I suggest that that point has now been reached—when what we are working for is the greatest possible degree of co-operation in whatever way it may be achieved.
In the monetary sphere—this is a technical and narrow area, but it is of fundamental importance to us—I believe that that co-operation will best be achieved if we try to attain a monetary stability most suited to each country at a particular time. It will mean that, for the time being, we shall have to abandon the stronger views or objectives of concertation in the sense that it may mean linking currencies together in the snake.
As a relative newcomer to the House perhaps I should declare another interest.

I do not have any philosophical commitment either to fixed rates or to floating rates, for gold or against gold. It is essential in these days, particularly as the economic balance of power in the world has shifted largely outside Europe, that we take account of the realities of the situation. Therefore, at any one time the policies formulated for this country and for other members of the Community should take into account what is happening today and what is likely to happen in the near future.
I suggest that in any future draft directive on the harmonisation of banking law one critical point, to be made at an earlier stage, should be that each country has a proper means of controlling speculation in currency that could lead to bank failures and, frankly, to a fragmentation of the monetary system which would prevent countries like Britain from raising money on the Eurodollar market for their companies and prevent them from raising standby credits which are so important when trying to finance current balance of trade deficits. If we are to look at it from this point of view, we shall need to take account on a changing basis of changed circumstances.
I am grateful to the House for having listened to a technical and, in some parts, abstruse speech, but when a watershed is reached—I believe that that is what it is—it is right that, in the context of documents which discuss the way that we control our economic and monetary affairs, we should bring these points forcibly to the notice of the House. I am not ashamed of having done that tonight.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate. I shall not attempt to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart), because I could not hope to deal with the technicalities to which he referred in the time available to me.
The debate has been a clear demonstration of the opportunity for the House of Commons to interpose itself in the decision-making process of the European Community.
It is particularly appropriate, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said, that, in view of his long interest in


the need for a greater degree of parliamentary control over the executive in its activities in the Council of Ministers, he should open the debate today. I hope that he will therefore be sympathetic in future to the activities of our Scrutiny Committee.
My right hon. Friend referred to page 21 of Document R/1253/74, which I understand was a version published on 29th May, but I have just been to the Vote Office and the only document it would provide me with was a version published on 15th May, which unfortunately ceases at page 17. I point this out to give one example of the enormous difficulties that there are in considering these matters. A particular difficulty is in trying to keep up with these rapidly moving documents—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Am I to understand that my hon. Friend has not been able to acquire the documents relevant to the debate from the Vote Office?

Mr. Roper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but, fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has let me have his copy of the document and, therefore, I am sufficiently well-informed on this occasion—

Mr. Loughlin: I believe that there is a point of order involved here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster did in practice rule that if documents were not available within two years of publication to hon. Members of the House the debate to which they related could not proceed. If my hon. Friend is saying that he has been to the Vote Office and that the document concerned was not available, I submit that we should invoke the ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster in this connection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of the ruling given by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, but, in fact, the documents are available in this case.

Mr. Loughlin: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to pursue this matter, but it is of prime importance to the House. It may be that on this occasion some hon. Members do not look at it in that way, but they may

well do so on a future occasion. On the occasion that Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster made the ruling to which I referred these was a fairly good discussion about it. The ruling arose in connection with the terms of an agreement regarding broadcasting, and after considerable discussion it was ruled by the Chair that it was improper for the House to proceed without the necessary documents before it. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) has admitted that he went to the Vote Office and asked for a document that was relevant to the debate but was not able to secure it. I submit that this is equivalent to the situation upon which there was the ruling that I have mentioned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) to say that he now has a copy of the document—

Mr. Loughlin: He got it from somebody else—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is immaterial. It will be found that the documents involved are available.

Mr. Roper: I was trying to make the point that I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General will in his capacity as a Treasury Minister ensure that the House is provided with sufficient staff in the Vote Office, and elsewhere, so that we get all the proper up-to-date documents on this subject. The trouble is that, while documents are available, they are frequently changed, and one is never sure whether one has the correct and most up-to-date documents.
However, in considering the proposals from the Commission to the Council of Ministers, we come to the central question of the nature of the Community—how far it is, in aspiration or reality, anything more than a customs union, and how far it is even now beginning to be a Community rather than a Common Market?
Some of my hon. Friends have criticised the Community for wanting to do too much. My criticism of the member States is that they have failed up to now to make use of the Community mechanism to tackle together their individual economic problems. The lessons of the 1930s and the Second World War were that collective security is essential as a method of defence, individual defence being impractical for countries of our size. I hope


that we shall not have economic disasters in the 1970s to teach us that collective economic policy-making is essential today.
There is probably a need, therefore, not only for consultation and co-ordination but for accepting together some common discipline if we are not all to suffer the disastrous effects of a series of beggar-my-neighbour competitive policies. It is, therefore, disturbing that in document R/1474/74 the Commission says:
… the Community consultation and concertation procedures adopted on 18 February have been throttled back.
It is also interesting to read the Opinion on Document R1253/74 of the European Parliament—

Mr. Skinner: Assembly.

Mr. Roper: In paragraph 1 the Parliament
Expresses its disappointment at the fact that the Commission, after making a shrewd analysis in its communication of the economic situation, goes on to formulate recommendations that are not primarily geared to the real situation and needs of the Community but which reproduce more or less unchanged the policy measures and intentions of the Governments of the Member States; whereas the whole Community finds itself confronted by a drastic restructuring of production, unemployment problems, the danger of disruptive capital movements and disquieting price increases".
The Parliament goes on to say that it
Holds the view that the Communication from the Commission contains, in addition to worthwhile recommendations, many statements that are over-cautious and even obscure or contradictory, which are not in keeping with the gravity of the present situation".
It then lists a number of items of which that is true. On employment, it says that
… the situation is presented in excessively optimistic terms".
On restructuring of production, it says:
… the Commission wishes to support this but does not indicate how this should be done
It lists other points as well in which it finds the document totally unsatisfactory.
I wonder what notice the Council of Ministers has taken of the European Parliament in this matter. This document, far from being radical, reads, so far as this country is concerned, as if it were drafted by Treasury officials.
The problem arises, however, that we are operating our economies now in a situation in which we are outside the range of experience incorporated into our macro-economic forecasting models. One wonders, therefore, whether guidelines drafted in March and eventually adopted in July will be of any value in a rapidly-changing economic situation. The situations in Denmark and Italy have already proved that the document is out of date for those countries because of the policy changes which have been made.
In the two main recommendations for the United Kingdom, we are told:
To stimulate exports, economic policy … will have to aim at reducing by the end of 1974 the growth of domestic demand to a rate distinctly below the expansion of productive capacity.
On page 2 we read:
The essential problem posed for the coming year is the maintenance of a susbtantially lower rhythm of growth of private expenditure than that of G.N.P.
What happens if the other sectors of GNP do not grow? Does this imply a fall in the level of our economic activity?
The guidelines as they stand are worthy and platitudinous but are inevitably out of date and were probably out of date before they were written. The task which was laid down in the Council decision of 18th February is important, but I am not sure whether this is the correct mechanism to achieve those ends. I should be glad of my right hon. Friend's views on that matter.
The second major document we are considering, R/147/4/74, is much more radical and interesting, but, as I expected, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General let us know that quite a number of the more radical proposals were being opposed in the Council of Ministers, particularly those in paragraphs (7) and (8). It would be interesting to know how the Commission would make decisions on the allocation of the large credits announced in paragraph (7). Similarly, I think that the House as a whole, and not only the hon. Member for Hitchin, was glad to hear from my right hon. Friend, with regard to paragraph (8), that the suggestion that the adder should be inserted within the python had been rejected by the Council of Ministers, and that our currency would be able to continue floating unrestrained.
This has been an important debate, the first of its kind. I am grateful for the explanations my right hon. Friend gave at the beginning of the debate. I hope that this will be the first of a very long series of such debates.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I should like to join those who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and the Scrutiny Committee on providing the House with the opportunity for the debate. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said, it is a matter of feeling our way as the House comes to terms with the current state of British membership of the Community.
There is no doubt that others are making competitive claims for the political evolution of Western Europe. I have no doubt that Dr. Cornelius Berkhouwer has his views of the legislative competence of the Strasbourg Assembly. Certainly, if Commissioner Spinelli is to be judged on the speech he made while receiving the Robert Schuman Prize, the House should look zealously to its traditional law-making and law-influencing character.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has once or twice, from a sedentary position, cast some doubts on the efficacy with which the debate is being conducted, I conclude that it is just a beginning. It is the first of these debates, and I have some faith that zealots above and below the Gangway will make sure that they become fairly embarrassing circumstances for the Treasury Bench, even if the debate is conducted more by the voice than the vote.

Mr. Skinner: We shall have both.

Mr. Biffen: We shall all study the Division lists tomorrow and realise that those Wednesday morning debates inside the Labour Party have been brought momentarily into the open for general discussion tonight. One could read the speech of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) very much in that light.
Because many others wish to take part in the debate, which unhappily must conclude at 10 o'clock, I want to confine myself to two major factors. First, one

of the issues we are debating is the whole question of consultation and the linking of exchange rates. I wonder how practical it is to carry out particularly the policy indicated in the Paper COM(74)696, where there is a fairly heroic ambit of prior consultation procedure for the currencies of member States. It says that consultation must be "urgent, multilateral and"—then comes that great word—"secret".
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Stewart) is very anxious that these aspirations should be fulfilled. There is no doubt that the great change that has taken place in the whole balance in international monetary arrangements over the past few months, not least on account of the rise of sheikh oil money, will put a great test on the somewhat rigid arrangements contained in the document. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) reminded the House on Monday, to consult means to listen to the opinions of others as well as to voice one's own opinions. My right hon. Friend was then referring to the Secretary of State for Industry. Of course, it is improbable that there can be that degree of consultation preceeding a change in a fixed parity. It seems—without casting any aspersions upon the customs and the culture of the governmental institutions of Brussels—that there has been if not a higher rate of leakage at least more open discussion of a great many things by those institutions than we experience in our own governmental institutions.
I wonder how seriously we can expect these proposals to be implemented in respect of currency changes? Our experience in the Community to date has been that most countries have felt obliged to change their national parities with the minimum of prior consultation. That is an acknowledgment of the realities. I wonder what good purpose we serve by creating circumstances and situations in which guidelines are more likely to be observed in breach than in practice? I believe that that has certain consequences for the law itself.
Those matters take me to the generalised aspirations that are contained in Document 1253/74. The document has been referred to a great deal. It sets out a line of Government policy that I have


not completely identified with the Treasury Bench hitherto. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is not here, but I understood the burden of his intervention to be that Selsdon Man is alive and well, and living in Brussels. That may be true; I do not know. All I can say is that as I read Document 1253/74, to which I understand the Government are giving their assent, I cannot relate it to the advice that has been proffered by the National Institute. I shall not enter into the controversial question whether they should accept the advice that is proferred. Indeed, more than advice is proffered—namely, guidelines.
The House deserves to be told the meaning of the guidelines in explicit and categoric terms. That is one of the purposes of a debate of this character. There cannot conceivably be a parallel at the Strasbourg Assembly, however distinguished a delegation we may send. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. I will not make the arguments because they have already been made—not least by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
I do not think that it is by accident that the House is being invited, as a first stage of economic and monetary union, to consider the linking together of exchange rates. There is an attraction for the architects of monetary and economic union to go for the linking of exchange rates as it is relatively simple. The alternatives would be to try to harmonise fiscal and other economic practices, and we would then run immediately into the legislative powers of the national Parliaments.
I have no doubt that an organic and evolving economic union within Europe would not have selected the linking of exchange rates or the linking of parities. It would much more have favoured a moving together of the exchange rates as a result of the approximation of the economies of the member States themselves. Therefore, I have considerable reserve and sceptiscism for the whole approach now being adopted by the Community, and to which the House is expected to give its consent.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: We played "general post" on 28th February and changed sides in this House but apparently, as far as the EEC is concerned, each Government wear the same hat. It is a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I am very bewildered by this, and consider it to be arrant casuistry to do what we are told to do—accept that this Directive does not fetter our freedom.
We were formerly told that we would still have complete power to pursue effective regional, industrial, economic, fiscal, monetary, and full employment policies. Now we are told:
The Member States shall"—
I repeat "shall"—
pursue their economic policies in conformity with the guidelines which are specified in the Annex.
One cannot have it both ways. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is saying, to paraphrase Shakespeare, "To be and not to be". He is rather like the mayor who, on being inducted into office, said that he would be neither partial nor impartial.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) spoke about pooling sovereignty. As I pointed out to him, one cannot pool sovereignty, because once one does pool it it ceases to be sovereignty. That is what is happening here. We are being told what to do. We are being directed to pursue economic policies within a framework of economic and financial guidelines. These policies have to be pursued. It is not a question of the discretionary "may". They must be pursued. The document goes on to talk about arrangements whereby member States implement the economic policy directives—and I stress the word "directives". In fact, we now see the whole thing in its naked horror.
We are told in a cavalier fashion:
The fulfilment of these requirements may in certain cases endanger full employment … The number of workers in danger of having to change their jobs will be noticeably higher than in the past".
But this is brushed aside. We are also told:
an important part will have to be played by monetary policy in order to help make the necessary adjustments.
We were told previously that we would be able to continue to formulate our own


monetary policy. Now we are backtracking. We are further told:
Interest rates should be maintained at high levels, as much to ensure an adequate level of real rates as to maintain a sufficient margin over the rates obtaining in the main foreign markets.
We are being directed what we must do. We are given directives. The directives say blandly that there may be a deterioration in the employment situation, and they talk about budgetary policy and measures. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter. I hope that we will not take note of these documents, but if we do I sincerely hope that we do not implement them.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I think that a "take note" debate is the wrong procedure to deal with these documents, and I think that the time allocated to the debate is derisory. I know that it is not the Paymaster-General's fault. It is the fault of the Leader of the House. We should make representations to him to the effect that important documents of this nature should be given much more time than this.

Mr. Skinner: Some of us would not get in the debate no matter how long it lasted.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that intervention.
I turn to Document 1253 and say that I object on principle to the fact that we, as a Conservative Party, should tie the management of the British economy to operating within the guidelines set out in that document. It is absolute folly.
In interventions I asked the Paymaster-General and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) how they interpreted Article 1 of this draft. This is a draft, but I understand it is to be agreed at the Council of Ministers. Article 1 says:
The Member States shall pursue their economic policies in conformity".
We are instructed to do it and to conform. Yet the right hon. Gentleman said, even before we have put the dhobi mark on it, that we have broken one of the main principles, which is to get our interest rates well above, or appreciably above, the ruling international rates. He said that we have brought them down

now to what are the international rates. Already we have created that situation.
I speak for others who may not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, when I say that I wonder what on earth all this paper is about. We are told to sign this and to obey the guidelines, and yet we have the undertaking from the Paymaster-General that if we want to break them we may do so. Why on earth are we sitting here wasting our time debating them? I hope that when the Paymaster-General replies, if he gets time, and he may not—it depends on what happens with the other speeches—he will come clean with the House why we have this document.
It is obvious, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that we want co-operation. There is no reason why we should not discuss these things in the Nine. I would like to see us discussing them with many more countries in Europe than just this little clique. This is an important matter.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Even Turkey?

Mr. Marten: I would even include Turkey. It is a splendid country.

Sir A. Meyer: And Spain?

Mr. Marten: Yes. And Spain.
The point I am making is: why should we have these discussions? Why should they be reduced to paper in a draft like this, which instructs us to conform? That is my first criticism. It is because of this that I will oppose the directive, if I get the chance.
There is clearly a page missing from the document of 29th May. That is a detail to which we have got used. It would have been thought that with all the experience of churning out paper from Brussels those responsible for it would have got this right, but they have failed to do so. When this document refers to the United Kingdom it says:
In the United Kingdom, economic trends will be strongly affected throughout the rest of the year by the repercussions of the temporary limitations of the working week to three days and of the miners' strike.
I am interested to note that the Conservative Opposition are not opposing that remark. I thought we were saying that the three-day working week had not had much of an effect, that we had done rather well out of it, that we had an 85


per cent. production figure during that time.
On page 20 there are these sterling, deep-thinking words, clearly from the best brains in the Common Market:
The trend of rising prices could increase sharply during the coming months.
Is it not a glimpse of the obvious? Why do we need to have these debates to consider that sort of trite statement?
It goes on:
Prospects for the balance of payments on current account already in very large deficit in 1973, continue to give cause for concern.
This is just like—

Mr. Silverman: Old Moore's Almanac.

Mr. Marten: —a sixth form or upper fifth form essay on economics.
It goes on to refer to the beneficial effects of the depreciation of the effective exchange rate of sterling. In other words, it is congratulating us on having decided to float the pound. I thought that the object of the exercise was to get everyone inside that poisonous, snaky tunnel.
By agreeing not to oppose these guide-lines the Conservative Opposition have agreed to this statement which appears on page 21:
An essential condition for avoiding an abrupt halt in the expansion of internal demand in the short term is to lay the foundations of an agreement on a concerted prices and incomes policy".
If we win the next election we shall need to know from my right hon. Friend what will be our concerted prices and incomes policy. That is a relevant matter for the whole country.
On page 22 this upper fifth form document refers to slowing down the expansion of the money supply in 1974. Could not the document have referred to M1 or M3, which is relevant in speaking about the money supply?
The document goes on to say:
Moreover, the balance of payments situation calls for short-term interest rates to be maintained at a level appreciably higher than those prevailing on international monetary markets.
Already we have breached that guideline by which we are supposed to be bound.
The opening sentence of document R/1474 is fascinating. In the last four

of five months we have passed through the most terrific financial and economic turmoil, yet the opening sentence of the document reads:
The Council of Finance Ministers is meeting on 6th June for the first time for nearly four months.
What sort of board of directors runs the Common Market when, through all the turbulent financial months we have just been through it does not even meet? That is where the Common Market condemns itself by the failure of its member States to get together. We all know that it does not work; but why?
In January we were running up to an election, in February we had an election; in March the Belgians had an election; in April, President Pompidou died; and in May, Herr Brandt found a spy in his private office. During those four mid a half months the Common Market was, if I may use the word used by one of the English delegates to the European Assembly, "sterilised". Nothing happened because no one could speak with any responsibility.
Now we look ahead to the great new dynamism which is about to be set alight by President Giscard d'Estaing, and what happens? Buckets and spades during the whole of August for all the Common Market countries, a General Election in September, probably, in this country, and it will be October before we collect together a Government of whatever sort. It will be mid-October before the Common Market can begin to operate, and by then the Italian Government will have collapsed again and the Italians will be out of it. We can look forward to a magnificent stretch of sterility.
To be serious, that is why it is wrong for this country to put itself inside any guidelines. Whichever Government get back after an election they must have absolute freedom and flexibility to do what is best for the country. By all means let us co-operate with the others, but let us not be put inside these guidelines.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: It falls to me to reiterate what was said at the beginning of the debate, and that is to add my voice to the congratulations which have been extended to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford


(Mr. Davies) and his colleagues on the Scrutiny Committee on their work—work which has provided the basis for this debate.
I feel that I carry many hon. Members with me, though not perhaps all, in suggesting that this has been a most valuable debate. It may be true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) implied, that time has not been sufficient to go into all the details and ramifications of these important issues. I think we would agree with that sentiment, but we would also agree that there would never be sufficient time to examine all the serious problems which confront the European Economic Community. This relates to the attitudes of the Parliaments of all the Member countries of the Community and the seriousness with which they indulge in co-operative efforts to achieve solutions to some of those problems.
While I admire the technique of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury in his, as usual, witty and amusing speech, I am a little perplexed, and I ask myself why my lion. Friend on these occasions wants to have it both ways. The tenor of his admittedly brief remarks was that the documents before us were menacing in the extreme and that much in them was trite, but he then appeared to be worried that we did not have the time to debate them in detail. That is the kind of contradiction which disturbs other member countries and their parliamentarians. I shall not over-develop that point because I do not wish to annoy the House unnecessarily, nut this aspect of the matter casts doubt on the procedure and willingness of this House to get to grips with the essential problems facing the Community. This relates particularly to Parliament's necessary scrutiny of all the suggestions and proposals that emanate from the Community.
One appreciates the problems which faced the Scrutiny Committee in its late start in getting to grips with the situation. I am sure I echo the views of many hon. Members in admiring the way in which the Committee dealt with all the weight of material that came before it.
There are some hon. Members whose attitude is bound to undermine the strength and cohesion of the Scrutiny Committee's work in future. This is only a beginning. Inevitably, there has been a catching-up process in the work of the

Scrutiny Committee. The Committee has done very well, but because these matters are only at a beginning there obviously is room for improvement in the future. This applies to the amount of time which the Government will grant in response to the Scrutiny Committee's request for consideration of important topics. This also relates to the procedures and the way in which the methods of dealing with these important issues are honed up in future. Nobody could expect too much at the start.
The debate has been useful for a number of reasons. It has clarified some of the Government's responses to suggestions made by the Commission in advance of what the Government will be doing as a member of the Council of Ministers and other councils. Above all, it has established the primacy of Parliament as a whole in vetting, surveying, examining and debating these matters. That is the central purpose of the debate.
I should like to ask the Paymaster-General whether he could give a little more detail on some of the things he enunciated in his opening remarks. Many hon. Members, irrespective of their views on the wider issues of the Community, would like to know more details of the Government's balance of payments objectives in relation to what these documents have proposed. On interest rate policy also, clearly what is suggested in the document at a specific date six weeks or two months ago can rapidly become out of date. It is an exaggeration to say that interest rates have now moved totally out of line with what is referred to in the documents but it would help the House to know a little more about the Government's attitude to interest rate policy and the movement of interest rates in our economy in the near term.
Exchange rate consultation is going to be such a complicated, complex matter in the future that once again there is insufficient time to do justice to it tonight but perhaps I am echoing the views of other hon. Members in all parts of the House if I say I would appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General would try to say a little more about this area as well. The concept that eventually the Community will be able to return to a collective float against other external currencies is attractive to many hon. Members, I believe, for the


relative stability that it brought, albeit for a very temporary period, because of international currency and exchange upsets that drenched and swamped the Community's effort at establishing a rational system. None the less, in the minds of many hon. Members, and hon. Members on this side of the House, the objective would be to aim in due course to return to that general policy framework.
On prices and incomes policy there are bound to be question marks of a significant kind. The Government, I feel, are obliged to answer the queries of hon. Members on this side of the House when they ask: can Parliament as a whole, and can the Government, be more precise on prices and incomes policy? It is not really the task of the Opposition at this stage to respond to that direct question put to the Government by a number of hon. Members earlier in this debate. As I have tried to suggest, the Opposition welcome this debate and welcome this first opportunity for the suggestions of the Scrutiny Committee to be taken up in earnest by us all—and that, I hope, would include some hon. Members on the other side of the House who do not appear to have wished to treat this whole subject with some of the earnestness that the crisis facing Europe and the wider world now demands.
Whilst we welcome the debate, whatever the Government may say, both in this part and in the later debate tonight, a number of very brief final conclusions are called for on behalf of the Opposition. A number of hon. Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford highlighted this in their remarks. My right hon. Friend, I felt quite rightly, emphasised that the EEC is not anxious to be a bureaucratic autocracy. Again and again, what is depressing to hon. Members in all parts of the House is the impression given by those many hon. Members with well-known views that instructions, directives and even regulations emanating from Brussels and the Commission are to ourselves as a nation alone and not to any other members of the European Economic Community.
Plenty is said in these documents about, for example, the proposed obliga-

tions on Germany as one of what one might call "Group A", those members of the Community who are in relatively better economic circumstances than countries like ourselves and to a lesser extent France, and Italy as an extreme example of short-term crisis conditions, and so on. Germany and the Netherlands are asked to accept fairly onerous obligations of their own in the overall cooperative effort. I would repeat what has been said by other hon. Members in this debate, that in all these documents the word "draft" is written clearly at the top for all members who wish to do so to acknowledge, and to read, and to recognise that these are suggestions to the effect that there is a lot of consultative work emanating from the Community as part of the complex process of co-operation and consultation. It behoves not only the Government and the Opposition but the whole House to indulge in, co-operate with and accept this collective effort for the future of this country in a thriving Economic Community.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Dell: By leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
If that was the first speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) from the Front Bench, I congratulate him. He asked many questions which would be more easily dealt with in the course of the general economic debate which I believe we may hold. I shall try to deal with his points, or with as many of them as I can, during the course of my reply.
This has been an important debate. I note the feeling of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten)—with other hon. Members, I believe—that perhaps it would have been better if this debate had not been held on a motion to take note. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Lord President will take note of that point. It will be for consideration whether this is the appropriate procedure for future debates of this kind.
Many points were raised. The first—and one which has played a very large part in this debate—is the impact of the guidelines on United Kingdom sovereignty, on the United Kingdom Parliament, on the power of the United Kingdom Government to decide its own economic policies.
I shall not here enter into the general question of how far membership of the European Economic Community may be considered as impinging on United Kingdom sovereignty. I have no doubt I would have disagreements with some of my hon. Friends and other Members of the House on that point.
I am concerned with how far the acceptance of these guidelines, in the terms which I have described in my opening speech, impinge on United Kingdom sovereignty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) put a very simple question on that point. He asked whether the House of Commons could reject this motion and reject these guidelines. This, apparently, was a test of the maintenance of United Kingdom sovereignty. Obviously the House of Commons can reject these guidelines; that is clear. There has never been the least doubt about it. But the House of Commons does not have to reject the guidelines in order to prove its sovereignty. The question should be debated on merits. This is a draft Decision, entered into as a result of the process of consultation, which does convey benefit to this country in that it enables us in a co-ordinated way to influence the development of policies in other parts of Europe which have their impact on us.
I shall come further to the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury.
A question that has become obvious in the course of this debate—a debate welcome to me, from many points of view—is that it does give the House of Commons an opportunity through this system, through the Scrutiny Committee, of controlling the executive.
During the course of the debates on the European Communities Bill in 1972 I emphasised that my concern was not the impact of entry on United Kingdom sovereignty; it was the impact of entry on parliamentary control of the executive. That is why I wanted a procedure like this to enforce parliamentary control over the executive. We have that. We have the opportunities which are provided by this debate.
No decision can be adopted without the agreement of the United Kingdom Government. This decision has been held up awaiting the decision, the agreement, of the United Kingdom Government. The

policy is not decided from Brussels. The United Kingdom Government will decide its own economic policy, though I must emphasise, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North realises, that this is subject to the constraints to which all national economic decision-making is subject these days.

Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend regard a decision of the Council of Ministers, when adopted, as binding on this country?

Mr. Dell: This decision is binding as guidelines. [Interruption.] I have explained to the House that they are guidelines conveying general policies which emphasise the importance of rectifying the balance of payments problems of this and other European countries. In that sense, yes. But I have indicated the reservations which we shall enter. The United Kingdom Government will decide what is best for this country, and we shall take account of the guidelines in so doing. They will not become a Council decision without the agreement of the United Kingdom Government.
In their amendment, my right hon. and hon. Friends have also raised the question of full employment, and how far accepting these guidelines endangers full employment in this country. Again, I have emphasised that we accept these guidelines as representing no derogation from the full employment objective announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement. He emphasised the importance, given our balance of payments deficit, of moving resources into the balance of payments and correcting our balance of payments deficit. Obviously, that has implications not only for the level of employment but for the movement of people into forms of employment which will help us to rectify our balance of payments situation—hut gradually.
This, again, was emphasised as being the policy of the Government. We said that we intended to do this gradually, so as not to impair full employment and, to enable us to do it gradually, to borrow. This is the policy of the Government, and it is in no way impaired by the acceptance of these guidelines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) was afraid that


because of the guidelines we should not be able to undertake pump priming, if that was an appropriate policy for the Government. There is no question of the Government's not being able to undertake pump priming if we regard that as appropriate policy at any time.
There has been some discussion about the communication. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North referred specifically to the communication. I must emphasise that it is not secondary legislation. though, as I said in my opening remarks, it can lead to secondary legislation.
When I made the point about Italy, to which the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) referred, I was explaining, in view of the statements made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, that here was a case in which the Government might think it right to give their agreement to a decision in a particular situation without the normal process of scrutiny being conducted, but taking account of the views expressed in the debate. I accept from the right hon. Gentleman what I think was his point—

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I move, That the Question be now put?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must wait at least another minute.

Mr. Dell: I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that I do not intend to talk out the debate. I shall sit down just before 10 o'clock, so that the House may come to a decision. It would be grossly improper to deny the House that opportunity.
I was telling the right hon. Member for Knutsford that we take account of the views expressed in the debate. I think that he regarded the debate as an opportunity to discharge the Government's responsibility in this matter.
I hope that I have dealt with the two matters referred to in the amendment which especially concern my right hon. and hon. Friends. They refer to interest rates and to full employment. I have emphasised the commitment of the Government to full employment policies. This commitment is not impaired by the acceptance of these guidelines. With that assurance, I hope that the House will take note of these documents.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 70.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh,W'wch,E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eyre, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Banks, Robert
Faulds, Andrew
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Millan, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher-Ccoke, Charles
Money, Ernie


Benyon, W.
Golding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bishop, E. S.
Goodhart, Philip
Murray, Ronald King


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Dr. David


Brittan, Leon
Graham, Ted
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Gray, Hamish
Pattle, Geoffrey


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Redmond, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, Ian
Harper, Joseph
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael
Hawkins, Paul
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Coleman, Donald
Hill, James A.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cox, Thomas
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Shersby, Michael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Sims, Roger


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
John, Brynmor
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Doig, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dormand, J. D.
Knox, David
Tinn James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)



Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Durant, Tony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Walder, David (Clitheroe)




Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitehead, Phillip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Watkins, David
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


White, James
Woodall, Alec
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Atkins, Ronald
Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.


Atkinson, Norman
Lamond, James
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minsterP'ton)
Sedgemore, Bryan


Bell, Ronald
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Body, Richard
Lee, John
Silverman, Julius


Butler, Mrs. [...]oyce(H' gey,WoodGreen)
Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Carson, John
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
MacCormack, Iain
Spriggs, Leslie


Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
McCusker, H.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cryer, G. R.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Marten, Nell
Tierney, Sydney


Dunlop, John
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Milne, Edward
Watt, Hamish


Evans, John (Newton)
Moate, Roger
West, Rt. Hn. Harry


Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Molyneaux, James
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Mudd, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Flannery, Martin
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Fletcher, led (Darlington)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woof, Robert


George, Bruce
Ovenden, John



Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh re,E)
Reid, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mrs. Maureen Colquboun and


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Max Madden.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1253/74, R/1474/74 and COM(74)696.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Regional Policy may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Benn.]

Orders of the Day — EEC (REGIONAL POLICY)

10.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2055/73 and R/2474/73.
I must ask the indulgence of the House for taking part in what is a new procedure for the House and for Ministers in that the Scrutiny Committee sought this debate. The object of the debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have these groupings and discussions going on in the House.

Mr. Benn: This debate, like the earlier one, is being held at the request of the Scrutiny Committee, which wanted to give the House an opportunity to air its views, this time on two Commission documents relating to regional policy.
I understand that the rôle of a Minister at this stage is rather that of the impressario of the debate than the sponsor of the papers. The idea is that the Minister should simply present the documents and then listen to and note what is said.
The first document, R/2055/73, contains, first, a draft Decision by the Council of Ministers to establish a Committee for Regional Policy; secondly, a proposal for the establishment of a Regional Development Fund; and, thirdly, a proposal for a Financial Regulation for the Fund.
The second document, R/2474/73, contains the Commission's proposals for a regulation on the list of priority zones and for a regulation on the list of regions and zones eligible for aid.
Hence, from the point of view of the House, these documents are of some interest because they bear upon the boundaries of what would be assisted areas within the Community. I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I take these matters together and try to describe and present them simply.
I understand that the original idea of the Regional Development Fund goes back to a time when the Community, being made up of members whose main

regional problems were in agriculture, concentrated on agricultural areas.
At the summit meeting in 1972 the proposal became much firmer in that the Regional Development Fund was proposed to correct regional imbalances. At that stage, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will know better than me, the proposal was contemplated in pursuit of other objectives, including problems arising in areas of structural change deriving from the rundown of old industries. The summit communiqué also contained a reference to regional imbalances which might affect the realisation of economic and monetary union.
The report that was commissioned was designed to produce a Regional Development Fund by 31st December 1973. It was linked then, and remains linked, certainly in the minds of the Council of Ministers and of the Commission, to the development of an economic and monetary union.
A number of proposals were made in that connection which are described in the documents, but no agreement has been reached. With the change of Government and the fundamental renegotiation which is now in progress, the proposal for the Regional Development Fund still lies on the table.
I shall deal as quickly as I can with some of the aspects of the fund regulation, which is the central proposal, and I hope to answer questions which may be raised. It is not specified whether fund assistance should supplement national expenditure or reimburse all or part of such expenditure, although fund assistance would be linked to particular investment projects. It is contemplated in the draft documents before us, upon which the Government have not reached any sort of view, that the fund would assist only projects in eligible areas as defined in the separate regulation.
The fund would assist both industrial and service activities and infrastructure, though the term "infrastructure" is not fully defined, but would be limited to infrastructures required for development of industrial or service activities.
Larger projects coming within the contemplation of the fund would be assisted only after individual approval by the Commission, and only projects forming


part of a coherent regional development programme would be assisted.
The financial regulations themselves would be intended to deal with the routine financial arrangements for the fund. There is a proposal for a regional policy committee which would consider policy under which the fund would operate and would advise the Council and the Commission. The fund map regulation lists the qualifying regions and areas, and hon. Members will find the United Kingdom list on pages 12 and 13.
The regions covered are all of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and, in addition, all the English development and special development areas, except Furness, together with all the intermediate areas other than the South Humberside, Mid-Yorkshire and South Yorkshire sub-regions of the Yorkshire and Humberside Region; the Manchester, South Cheshire and High Peak, South Lancashire and mid-Lancashire sub-regions of the North-West Region; and the Notts-Derby Coalfield Intermediate Area.
The explanatory memorandum explains that to qualify areas must be more than a minimum size with at least 100,000 inhabitants, be eligible for regional assistance from their own Governments, have a level of gross national product per head below the Community average, and suffer from at least one of the following regional problems—structural underemployment, industrial change, or agricultural predominance.
There is also reference to the agricultural priority regions, which are also specified.
We are concerned not only about the fund itself. We are able in the debate to consider the whole problem of the coordination of regional aids under Articles 92 to 94 of the treaty, designed to maintain competition within the Community. In October 1971—which was before the previous Government took Britain into the Community—there was an agreement on principles for the co-ordination of regional aid systems. This provided for a 20 per cent. ceiling on aids in central areas and a phasing out of what are known as opaque aids, which in the view of the Commission cannot easily be quantified and compared.
In Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession—as signed at that time—it was accepted by the United Kingdom that the principles of co-ordination in 1971 would be forming part of the conditions of British membership, and the intermediate and non-assisted areas in the United Kingdom are central areas within the Common Market definition, the rest being unclassified.
I wish to bring the House up to date with the position. The regional development fund proposals are on the table. They are being seen by the Government as part of the renegotiation procedure, and in view of the fact that they contain an element of reallocation of resources they are being seen as one of the budgetary aspects, though there are other reasons why further progress is not being made. The object of this debate, which the Committee thought it right and proper to have, is that there should be an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views upon these matters so that they can be taken into account by Ministers involved in the renegotiation.
I must make it clear that the details have not yet been worked out in any case, and the Government are engaged not in presenting proposals but in inviting discussion of proposals that are before the House and the Community.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Do we yet know the annual expenditure from this fund which will accrue to the United Kingdom? I think that a figure was promised by the previous Prime Minister about two years ago. Do we yet know this or is it still a pure hypothesis?

Mr. Benn: No, there has been no agreement by the Community on the fund. We do not know what the total sum would be, or what the contributions would be, except in so far as the "own resources" contributions can be calculated from the budgetary contribution that we would make, which was itself the subject of a special reference by the Foreign Secretary in his second speech. How much there would be for the United Kingdom, therefore, has not been decided, nor how it will be allocated within the United Kingdom. In effect, a broad framework is available for tonight's debate, but beyond that there is not much that I can tell the House.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I appreciate that the Secretary of State is anxious to demonstrate his own personal complete disassociation from this occasion, but it would be helpful to our debate if we knew whether it was the Government's view that aids from the regional fund should be arranged additionally to or in place of aids which the Government themselves intended to give.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member knows better than most, because he has followed these matters closely, that a decision of that kind has not been made and that the Government have responded by tabling the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, including myself, to the request of the Scrutiny Committee that the House should have an opportunity to express its view before the Government reach their view.
The hon. Member cannot have it both ways, on the one hand arguing that there is not a clear presentation of a clear position by the British Government and at the same time seeking to associate himself with the object of the debate, which is to give the House an opportunity to reach and express a view in some way—certainly to express a view—before Ministers do so. In this case I should be very much involved, as the regional and industrial Minister, in any discussions which may take place about these matters.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: While I agree that the Council of Ministers has not endorsed any regional development fund, is it not true that the Commission put up an original proposal, which it later amended, to present unanimously to the Council, under which, in the first instance, we should be a net gainer from the fund of £100 million under the original plan and of £85 million under the revised plan? Are not these quantifiable figures that the Commission has presented?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend also follows these matters closely. He will know that the view that the Foreign Secretary has taken on behalf of the Government is that the budgetary question should take pride of place and that one has to see this issue, including the transfer of resources, in a wider context.
My hon. Friend will also know that there have been three proposed levels—the initial one, the lower one, and now the intermediate one, to which I think he referred—but that the issue has been lying on the table of the Council of Ministers and is not likely to come up for decision for some time. Therefore, all that I am asking my hon. Friend to accept is that I am trying to provide an opening which will allow the House to give its view on the matter, and that I am not conveying my own view.

Mr. S. James A. Hill: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the theme of the Regional Development Fund is that member States should keep their own regional policy programmes running, that the fund is a 15 per cent. back-up to programmes that are sent to the Commission for ratifying, and that only in an extreme case will a State receive as much as 30 per cent. of the fund? Therefore, it is surely obvious that one will not be able to cut one's own regional policy programme. The fund is meant to be a back-up service rather than substituting for member States' regional policies.

Mr. Benn: These are issues that I expect hon. Members will raise in the debate. If I conclude quickly, it may be easier for Members to make their points as points of substance.
In conclusion, I would refer to the communiqué at the summit meeting in 1972 concerning the relationship between the regional fund and economic and monetary union. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has described that programme as overambitious, and has described the prospects for achieving it by 1980 as small.
But these are all matters which are the subject of the fundamental renegotiation now in process. I have referred to the budget. Discussions are going on in the working groups, and on these and other aspects of the Common Market the British people will be reaching a decision. Therefore, just as I, in presenting this matter to the House, present it in such a way as to allow the debate to take place, so Parliament in discussing these matters is contributing towards the moment when the British people reach their decision on these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I would inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and his hon. Friends.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: The Secretary of State for Industry has presented the Government's case in as neutral a way as possible. I think that he is right to say that this is an opportunity for the House as a whole to consider draft Community documents in advance of decisions being taken.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been present at the earlier debate to hear so many of his hon. Friends complain bitterly that Parliament and the country were being rail-roaded into decisions on policy simply because the draft Directives and the draft Decisions say that the Community and the Minister shall do certain things. That arises only if the Government of the day, in concert with the other members of the Community, reach agreement on the proposals. To that extent we can welcome the reassurance that the right hon. Gentleman must have given to many of his hon. Friends who were expressing anxieties in the earlier debate.
I wish in some ways that we had the benefit of the presence of the Minister of State, Department of Industry, who on previous occasions had warned the Government in dealing with these matters not to take too much notice of the "ancient Britons" in the House.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm, from his much greater knowledge than mine, that once the decision is reached it is not open for British Ministers, even if instructed in a contrary sense by a later Parliament, to change the decisions made by their predecessors.

Mr. Rippon: Once again I wish the Secretary of State had been present to hear his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General explain the constitutional principles that were involved. I can only refer him to his colleague's speech, with which I wholeheartedly agreed and which explained the position clearly. There is a major distinction to be made between guidelines of this kind and regulations

which can be made. The important point is that the Government in these circumstances have their vote and their view to be expressed in the Council of Ministers. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read the Paymaster-General's speech on that aspect.
This matter has been raised by the Scrutiny Committee as one of political importance. There are no difficulties, I think, arising from any legal or constitutional peculiarities. I do not think that it is good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is little more than an impresario. It is important in discussions of this kind that the Government should give the House their view on a draft Directive. They should explain what attitude they will adopt in the Council of Ministers. That is something that the House is entitled to know.
There is already a distinction between this debate and the debate that was introduced by the Paymaster-General. They have been handled in different ways. That illustrates that in these matters we are feeling our way as to how the procedure should be followed. I should be reluctant to accept the Secretary of State's view that a Minister can come here as an impresario and say "I am not not expressing any views about the Government's policy, and, anyway, it was all started by the previous Government."

Mr. Benn: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow, if it is printed, I think he will recognise that I said that the rôle of the impresario in responding to the Scrutiny Committee's request is that the Government table the motion that permits the debate to take place. That is quite different.

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity of Secretary of State acts just as an impresario. The Leader of the House may take note of what the Select Committee does and may make arrangements through the usual channels for the debate to take place, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can evade his responsibility. The explanatory memorandum reads:
Her Majesty's Government strongly supports the need to set up an effective Community regional policy.


That presumably means the policy of Her Majesty's present Government. Equally the right hon. Gentleman referred to Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession. Presumably Her Majesty's Government accept the effectiveness of Article 154 as it is not an item for renegotiation. The Government have made clear the limits of their so-called renegotiation in the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 4th June.
The European Community has always recognised the vital importance of the rôle of regional policies in economic development. In the preamble to the Treaty of Rome reference is made to the need to:
…ensure…harmonious development by reducing the differences between the various regions…".
It has always been recognised that regional policy remains primarily the responsibility of member countries and that it should not be interfered with unless the economic development of another member State is affected unfairly. That is what gave rise to the controversy over regional aid in certain central areas of the Community to the detriment of other parts. Neither the treaty itself nor the Treaty of Accession precludes our carrying out our own vigorous regional policy, but it was envisaged that there should be complementary support from the Community and from its funds. It was always envisaged that such matters would affect the future size and shape of the Community budget. It is the size and shape of the Community budget in the years ahead that is of great importance to us all.
The Regional Development Fund and its listing of priority agricultural regions is in our interests. The two schemes, the explanatory memoranda point out, are unrelated except in the criteria employed in the selection of agricultural priority regions, which are similar to those used to identify regions with a preponderance of agriculture for the purpose of the Regional Development Fund.
I think that it is agreed policy, as set out in the explanatory memoranda, that the proposals for agricultural priority areas are not expected to be fully established in the Community until agreement on the Regional Aid Development Fund has been reached. I hope that the Secre-

tary of State will agree that that makes speedy progress all the more essential. I say that particularly because among the proposed beneficiaries of the agricultural priority regions are the employment exchange areas of Haltwhistle, Hexham and Prudhoe in my constituency.
I am sure that the House will agree that the criteria for the priority agricultural regions seem very reasonable. They are set out in paragraph 2 of Document R/2474/73. This states that the Council of Ministers and the Commission
shall adopt the list of priority agricultural regions taking account in particular of the following criteria:

(a) a percentage of the working population engaged in agriculture which is higher than the Community average;
(b) a gross domestic product at factor cost which is lower than the Community average;
(c) a percentage of the working population engaged in industry which is lower than the Community average."


This point was raised by the Foreign Secretary at the Council of Ministers, and it was one with which I expressed agreement—namely, without looking for a reallocation which applied simply to the United Kingdom, it was important that in framing budgetary proposals the Community should have regard to the relative wealth of the countries of the Community and whether or not a gross domestic product was below the Community average.
I did not go as far as the Government in their suggestion to the Community that, as far as they can envisage things under a Socialist Government, we should be half as well off as the average French or German family by 1980, but, in so far as there are disparities between nations or between regions, it is right in framing the budget that these factors should be taken into account.

Mr. Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend will not have overlooked the fact that one of the most important aspects on which we shall receive aid concerns the outward migration which has taken place from some of our areas like Ulster, Scotland and Wales. This is one of the factors that the Commission has taken into account, and we shall benefit greatly in dealing with the problem of outward migration.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It arises


more under the document dealing with the regional fund. It is clear from the document that the Secretary of State has put forward with such enthusiasm that we shall be great beneficiaries if these guidelines are in due course adopted.
It is interesting to note that no constitutional or legal difficulties arise for us as far as the European Regional Fund is concerned or in the creation of a committee for regional policy. Nor is the Industry Act 1972 affected. There does not appear to be any need at all for United' Kingdom legislation.
I am glad that the Government support the need for an effective regional policy, and I also hope that they accept the proposition put forward in the Community's own explanatory memorandum on the subject of the regional development fund. It points out:
For the Community's assistance to be effective, it must meet three requirements: it should complement national regional policies, it should be flexibly managed and investments should conform to development programmes or specific development objectives.
It goes on:
The Community's assistance must complement rather than substitute the action of Members States because its purpose is to implement regional development policies "faster than Member States could alone…
Later, it states:
It is by providing these complementary resources that the European Regional Development Fund will contribute to accomplishing the task of ' promoting throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities' and the objectives of `the constant improvement of living and working conditions, and 'reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions' which have been assigned to the Community in the Treaty.
Turning to flexibility, it is made clear that the Community's assistance must be implemented flexibly. It says:
 Regional problems vary greatly between different countries and different regions. The Community's aid should be available both in areas where the imbalances are agricultural in origin and where they are industrial in origin.
Here again we see the Community showing a constructive view on a matter from which the United Kingdom is bound to benefit. Whether we are net beneficiaries to the extent of £100 million or £75 million we cannot say at this stage. The figures have not been agreed. It is important that the Government should press

forward vigorously with the implementation of this Regional Development Fund, because once the principles are established it is clear that funds will be made available and we will be beneficiaries.
It has always seemed right that, as we are net contributors to the budget, we have certain cards in our hand. Before we agree to pay any percentage of the total of the Community budget there should be proper provision for the implementation of the provisions of the treaty dealing with regional policy. I would have hoped for more enthusiasm.

Mr. Tom King: Before my right hon. and learned Friend gets too carried away with the extent of the Government's enthusiasm, may I ask him whether he has noted the total lack of interest of the Secretary of State for Industry, both in his presentation of this proposal and in the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend? Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not interested in the European Development Fund or Europe as a concept, and is not very much interested in regional policy in the way it is spelt out in this document?

Mr. Rippon: It might be impertinent for me to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he is bound by the factors of collective responsibility. It might be sufficient for me to invite him to read what the Paymaster-General had to say on these matters. I hope that this, at any rate, is one area of Community policy on which there can be general agreement. There is great benefit for us and for Europe in pressing ahead with these proposals as rapidly as possible.

10.43 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) should have suggested that, somehow or other, my right hon. Friend had no interest in regional policy. My right hon. Friend was a very good Minister in the last Labour Government and has tried very hard, in his present capacity, to enhance regional development. The hon. Gentleman himself knows about the problems of such development. My right hon. Friend may occasionally have made errors, but on the whole he has been extremely effective as a Minister. I say that as a Member representing an area


for which regional policy is extremely important.

Mr. Tom King: May I clarify this point? The reason I said that was that this European Regional Development Fund essentially supplements the type of system we have at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman has spent most of the past two months criticising the methods employed in regional development which this fund would supplement.

Dr. Mabon: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of what he said he will find that he made three comments, to the third of which I take strong exception. My right hon. Friend has a good record in terms of trying hard to develop regional policy in the United Kingdom. He may have some reservations about the matter we are discussing, but it is wrong to attack him on the general score.
My complaint is that having been such a good Minister, in terms of regional policy in this country, he ought to see—I hope his colleagues see—that the European Regional Development Fund could be an asset to the policies he is seeking to establish. I shall not cross-examine my right hon. Friend but I am not happy about his speech tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) spoke of the new mayor who promised to be neither partial nor impartial. That is the feeling I get about the speech of my right hon. Friend. He seemed to adopt the attitude that somehow or other he could be neutral in the debate.
He is moving a motion tonight in the name of himself and the Prime Minister I hope that if that motion is taken to a Division—and it may be—he will follow his voice with his vote. I feel that sincerely, because what we are doing is taking note of these matters. For example, let us ministerially examine what we are taking note of. It is the Minister's view—otherwise he must disown the departmental memorandum—that the additional aids to which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) referred are not in conflict with our policy here. The memorandum says, in paragraph 3, under the heading "Impact on UK Law":
The regional industrial development matters covered by the instruments are governed in the United Kingdom by the Industry Act 1972.

My right hon. Friend has given great credit for what has been done under the Act and has saluted the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in that regard.
Paragraph 3 continues
If adopted in their present form neither draft Regulation would require amendments of UK legislation.
That, I hope, puts an end to the argument that these additional existing aids of ours are contradictory to or can be cancelled out by something that the Community does. That removes the second pillar of the major argument.

Mr. Bob Cryer: If we do not need amendments to United Kingdom legislation why is it necessary for us to be involved in discussing draft legislation?

Dr. Mabon: That is a fair point. I am lucky, in that being on the Scrutiny Committee I know that certain draft regulations could affect us, or could affect other countries without affecting us. It depends on the legislation in the various countries.
The Minister is obliged to tell us where there is a conflict between a proposed regulation and our own law. He is obliged to do that in an impartial way. We are asked to take note of these documents, and our Minister has told us that these additional aids are not in conflict with the Industry Act 1972, which was passed by the Conservative Government with our whole-hearted assent—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Not all.

Dr. Mabon: With the exception of one or two primitives among the Conservatives. On the whole, the previous Parliament stood by the Industry Act, and the present Parliament also stands by it.
As a good Scot, I am interested in the money. We are for the present members of this club for better or for worse. As long as I am a member of a club and have to pay a subscription, even though I might want to leave it ultimately I want to get the maximum amount of benefit from the club. We have masochistically denied ourselves the benefit of at least £80 million over three years.
We fought the last Government over the ending of the regional employment


premium because it represented £40 million a year to manufacturing industry in Scotland. We fought hard, and eventually the Government gave way. Now that we are in power we have said that we shall not end REP in 1974 but will continue to give £40 million for the benefit of industry in Scotland. That applies also in the north of England and to other parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales. The £80 million in one year—it could grow to that—represents twice as much money as that. If the fund had been agreed on time we should have begun to draw in moneys of that order this year.
Numerous proposals have been put forward by private industry and public trusts for Scotland, which could have been financed out of the Community regional fund. For example, we are anxious to develop the Hunterston Peninsula as a deep-sea port, which involves the reclamation of sand lands at a cost of about £15,000 an acre. Hon. Members may disagree about the merits of that proposal, but we could have got a grant for that reclamation through the European Regional Development Fund, and we could have been doing that work now.
We are not in the Common Market just for a short term. Even if my hon. Friends get their way and the referendum goes against remaining in the Community, we may still remain in it for two or three years more. Each of those years represents a lot of money in regional development.
I cannot understand why we did not get a clear answer from the Government in April. I remember that, among others, I asked the Foreign Office the direct question, "Why are we not progressing a regional development fund?" It is not true that other nations are blocking us. We are the ones who have not pressed this on the Community.

Mr. Benn: I was puzzled by my hon. Friend's reference to the explanatory memorandum from which he quoted and which he attributed to the Government. He is quoting from the Conservative explanatory memorandum. There has been no memorandum for the Commons, I understand, from the present Government. I understand my hon. Friend's confusion, but I would not want him to

think that I was resiling from an explanatory memorandum presented by the present Government, because that is not the case.

Dr. Mabon: I cannot accept that—with the best will in the world. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has many virtues—one of them is that he works very hard and industriously—but if he thought that the memorandum did not represent the point of view of his Department he would not tonight be allowing Parliament to debate a matter that comes under the heading of the Department of Trade and Industry. He has made a rather remarkable statement. If he is saying that the passages I have quoted are wrong and that his Department has changed its view, he was in error in not telling us this in his opening speech. I cannot accept that his Department has changed its mind on two important points. I think that the points in the explanatory memorandum are fair.

Mr. Benn: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend has quoted from a memorandum submitted on 27th November by the Conservative Government and is claiming that I am not defending a memorandum prepared and submitted by the previous Government. I am not raising with him any of the merits of the issues, but if he chooses to quote Conservative memoranda and says that because I did not refer to it I was misleading the House, I think that he has accidentally made an error. My hon. Friend has been courteous to me and I want to be courteous to him, but it would not be fair to me, to the House or to the Government to imply that automatically memoranda submitted by one Government represent the policy of their successors.

Mr. John Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The orders which the Scrutiny Committee had were to consider certain papers. These included a large number of explanatory memoranda submitted at various times during the last 18 months. Surely the Committee is being told by the Secretary of State, if I understand him rightly, that all these should now be disregarded.

Mr. Benn: No.

Mr. Davies: I seek your protection for the Committee's work, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Dr. Mabon: It may not be a point of order but it is a point of remarkable substance. We must now assume from what the Secretary of State said that all memoranda dated before 28th February or 3rd March have to be revised by Ministers. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to reply off the cuff, but is he saying that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the explanatory memorandum of 27th November 1973 are so fundamentally wrong that my argument and the arguments of other hon. Members are invalid? Is he denying the truthfulness of the wisdom of these subjective judgments, or otherwise, of paragraphs 3 and 4? I do not ask him to make a statement now, but he is on dangerous ground in a parliamentary debate of this kind, where we are able to argue only on the papers before us and not on papers that may come later. If the Secretary of State has fundamentally changed his view on this matter we should have known about it before this debate.
My view is that there is no fundamental change of view. I cannot see how the Industry Act 1972 is in conflict with these proposals; and I do not understand how my right hon. Friend can say that Her Majesty's Government do not strongly support the objectives of European regional development policy.
My hon. Friend is a great democrat. If those who are in favour of joining and staying in the Community win the referendum he will be the first to accept it. If he accepted being in Europe, would be not agree that in the context of Europe one would be sensible and wise, as a good Socialist, to have a regional development fund and a regional policy? Would he not stand by the statement that Her Majesty's Government would strongly support this policy objective as a good Socialist objective in the Europe of today?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to refer to the millions of pounds which may accrue to Scotland as a result of participation in the fund? Will he

give us an indication of the payment that Britain may have to make to the fund, if established?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot remember the figures. If the hon. Member will refer to the debate in April he will see that we shall pay 14 per cent. and receive about 29 per cent. of the contributions. I am speaking from memory and those percentages may not be exactly correct, though the figures were given then.
I say without a doubt that we are the net gainers from a regional development fund, just as the French are net gainers from the Common Agricultural Fund.
I cannot understand how we are prepared to put up with a common agricultural policy and at the same time deny ourselves a regional development fund.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. S. James A. Hill: It would be remiss of me not to say a word of praise for the Commissioner responsible for Regional Policy in Brussels—Mr. George Thomson, a late Member of this House, who has done a great deal of good in bringing forward these policies and whose department has great enthusiasm for the regional policy programme for the whole of Europe.
The idea of a complete regional policy programme for Europe—in other words, the watercan effect—was changed at the December meeting when the Federal Republic of Germany asked for a more concentrated form of fund. It applied its reasoning well. A concentrated fund obviously meant a smaller fund. The clash of principles was such that the Commission had to change its views on the water-can effect.
Now we have what I would call a regional policy concentrated fund which is meant to form a back-up fund to existing regional policy programmes in the nine member States.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend clarify that point? Is it not right to say that even though the Germans insisted on a smaller fund the criteria involved in the distribution of that fund would still mean that the United Kingdom would gain a disproportionate amount from the fund, compared with what it put in?

Mr. Hill: That is correct. The Federal Republic of Germany insisted that there


would be three beneficiaries—the United Kingdom with Ulster. the Republic of Ireland and Italy.
Sicily, the Republic of Ireland and Ulster are three peripheral areas of the Community that will benefit greatly from the fund. In the two maps—one of the agricultural areas and one of the industrial decline areas—the United Kingdom was treated very generously. Indeed, the whole of Scotland, Wales, the North-West, the north-eastern part of the Midlands, and even the south-west of England were covered. That was probably the root cause why the maps covered the whole of the south-west of France. This made the Federal Republic of Germany think that the maps were too broadly based.
There is already a Regional Policy Committee in being, composed of two members from each of the member States and two members from the Commission. There may be a point of argument when the Minister discusses this in Luxembourg. Perhaps there should be a fairer spread of the number of members on the Committee. It is obvious that two members from Luxembourg and two members from the United Kingdom would seem to the observer to be unfair. Perhaps the Minister may make that point when he discusses this in Luxembourg. Apart from that, I think that the committee which will examine all the regional policy programmes put up by member States will be in being as soon as the fund is authorised.
When we talk of the fund, we talk, as the Commission talked and certainly as the Regional Policy Committee talked, of 2,250 million units of account. The German Federal Republic countered that by proposing a fund of 600 million units of account. Perhaps the United Kingdom went in far too strongly, because already the feeling was going against the water-can effect. The United Kingdom, lined up with Ireland, wanted 3,000 million units of account. It is now somewhere in between. But let there be no mistake: we shall do very well from this fund.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: May we have some further clarification of the 19 per cent. to which reference has been made? Is that a fixed percentage, or does it increase with our contributions?

Mr. Hill: The first-year fund will cover a three-year period. Whether or not the fund is used in the first year of that period, it will be cumulative. It will be a sum which can be worked upon to find out the percentages. The Council of Ministers has agreed that this should be a growing fund. It is not meant to stay at that amount. It may be that in the next two or three years it will double in size. It depends how the Regional Committee can get out the money and the programmes put up by member States.
Some member States are well organised on regional policy. Others, such as Sicily, have no regional programming at all. I found that even in Ulster there was a complete lack of regional programming for the day when the fund was created, whereas in the Republic of Ireland the regions are very well organised. The Irish Government are very keen to put forward their programmes as soon as the fund is arranged. The Minister will have to make sure that we are ready with our programmes when the fund is announced.
I want finally to refer to the problems of the trans-border areas. In the Community, a number of borders finish nowhere; there are borders with Iron Curtain countries, and there are problems with the Republic of Ireland and Ulster. Under the fund, these trans-border areas will receive a bigger percentage of aid for their definite specialised problems.
This is a step forward which is already being taken, even as we debate documents which are some months old and might almost be considered out of date. The renegotiation of regional policy documents is going on all the time. Nothing is static in regional policy.
I am sure that we are all very anxious for the United Kingdom to go ahead. The offer is on the table. It is in the region of 1,400 million units of account—at least, that is what we hear from the lobby back in the Community. I am sure that the Minister will find this out quite easily. Whatever be the sum, it will counter-balance some of the criticism concerning the money that we have to spend on the common agricultural policy. The sooner that we put forward our regional programming, so that we receive this back-up aid, the better.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I join other hon. Members in welcoming this opportunity to discuss this proposal. In my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry we have a very effective Minister for the regions who has already given some evidence of it to my constituents in the action that he has taken with regard to Court Line. My constituents are delighted at his action.
That does not rule out the potential value of the Commission's proposal, however. Just as I am delighted with the action taken by my right hon. Friend over the workers on Tyneside, I am also naturally anxious, even from a purely constituency reason, to see that some of the potential benefits are used as rapidly as possible. Some Community funds, from ECSC sources, have already been used. A housing improvement scheme for millers has been financed with the help of Community funds. Limited training schemes have also been developed from the social funds of the Coal and Steel Community.
One of the major issues involved here is that any funds coming from these proceedings should be clearly understood to be in addition to the work that is already being done by the British Government. This question has been taken up by local authorities in the North-East and elsewhere. The document says that the
assistance should not lead Member States to reduce their own total regional development efforts hut should be complementary.
That must be clearly understood.

Dr. Hampson: Since the matter was dealt with by the Foreign Secretary in his speech about renegotiations, will the hon. Member acknowledge that the previous administration secured a commitment from the Commission that our proposals for steel areas would be highly favourably regarded, when necessary?

Mr. Blenkinsop: That may be so, but the question must be considered in the context of the much wider matters over which we all have doubts and anxieties. None of us can pretend that this can be considered in isolation. We are members of the Community and therefore we should seek such advantages as are available.
Not only should these funds be additional to funds that the Government make

available; the Government should give an assurance that the regions will have a say in the detailed use of the money. That is a criticism I have of the proposals as they stand. I want clarification on that point. The authorities in the North-East are not happy that these decisions should be left with the Community, or even with the British Government. They also want a voice in the distribution of the funds.
I hope that these matters will be taken into account. I accept that this issue is not wholly within the competence of the Government, but that other Governments are involved. I hope for the sake of my constituents that this opportunity is not lost.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall be very brief. Despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Industry indicated that the object of the debate was to gather views, as it were, it must be recognised that a considerable gathering of views has been going on since 1973, when the document was originally produced. Therefore, there will inevitably be an awful lot of repetition in the debate. I do not want particularly to add to that.
It must be remembered that regional policy, as conceived and as it appears in the document, was the reverse side of the coin of economic and monetary union. It is, therefore, very difficult to try to separate off, as it were, the whole general argument about the Community and its desirability or otherwise, from looking at regional policy in a compartment. I want to try to do the latter rather than get involved in any general argument, and to make two or three points briefly.
First, I underline again and again the point made by a number of hon. Members about what is called the juste retour. Any kind of meaningful European regional policy will not work if all that happens is that individual national exchequers reduce their own domestic expenditure on regional policy according to the amount of money they are getting from Community funds. The whole thing will be a waste of time. The whole object and intention of a regional policy is to correct the economic imbalances within the Community. These will not be corrected if individual Governments act in that way.
I regret to say that one hears rumours that already the Treasury, which seems


to have a sort of will of its own, irrespective of who are the Government, is making its own arrangements to the effect that if we receive money for anything the same amount will be cut off the appropriate budget in future.
Second, I hope that the Secretary of State will press for the creation of as large a fund as possible. Figures have been bandied about, but we all know that the matter boils down to the fact that the Germans reckon that they would be paying too much. In the end, that is more important than the argument about the watering-can vis-à-vis the concentration. It was, after all, a surprise decision. We did not know about it until it was suddenly sprung upon us. But again, that overlaps into everything else.
Third, the Secretary of State mentioned infrastructure. He said that we do not know to what extent the regional fund can be spent on infrastructure development. It would be no bad thing for him to look at the debates in the European Parliament—or the European Assembly—to avoid contention. He would find that it was a consensus view of politicians from all over the Community that the concept of regional development should be as wide as possible and should not be confined simply to purely economic matters. After all, regional development is not just about economics. Surely, of all people, the Secretary of State must recognise that it is about the welfare of individual people in their various parts of the country.
Lastly, I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) about the composition of the regional committee, as and when it may be created. If and when it is established, it will not be sufficient or adequate that there be two members only from each of the existing member States of the Community. I should like to think that Scotland, Wales and the important regions of England would have some representation on the committee. I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the ludicrous situation with regard to the Regional Policy Committee, on which Luxembourg has two representatives and the whole of the United Kingdom has two. A similar situation would not be fair in any way.
I could continue at great length but I shall desist from that temptation.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have been discussing this matter now for many years and we continually hear the same old story. If we go back to 28th October 1971 we shall find that the same old speeches were being made.
I am not one for examining Community documents, but when I was apprised of the situation I felt that I should look at this regional policy, and I did.
I do not know whether it is because I have been asking some very awkward questions about the Market or suggesting that those who represent us in the Assembly have been making money on the side, but, on examining the document on the regional fund—from which, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), we are supposed to get back all that we put into the common agricultural policy, and more besides—I find that about the only area in the United Kingdom that has been excluded from any relief consistent with development, special development and intermediate area status is Bolsover—the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire coalfield, to be precise.
I point to this matter not because I feel terribly upset about not have got my constituency further entangled in the Common Market, but because, over the years, several of my hon. Friends who represent North-East Derbyshire constituencies having been trying to get for the remaining part of my constituency, Chesterfield and other parts of North-East Derbyshire, intermediate area status consistent with the rest of the area.
The next time that we trot along to the Department of Trade and plead for the rest of the area to be included and given intermediate area status we shall no doubt be shown this document. It will be suggested that in view of the Common Market's regulations—

Dr. Mabon: No.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says "No". I wonder how he comes to that conclusion. He does not know how much money will be paid out.

Dr. Mabon: Any schedules specified in the Industry Act are unaffected by this


legislation. As the Minister pointed out, the areas are not coincidental with the areas chosen by the European Community. Certain areas may get money from Europe but not from Britain.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is not following the argument. When we go to the Department of Trade and meet these bowler-hatted civil servants—even the advisers may be pro-Market—they will no doubt point out that these studious intelligent bureaucrats in Brussels, Strasbourg, or wherever, have come to the conclusion that, as the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire coalfield is excluded from intermediate area status, it would be ludicrous to include the rest of my constituency, parts of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) and of that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). That is the kind of story that they will tell us.
I do not want to detain the House long on this matter, as other hon. Members want to speak and the Minister has to conclude the debate.
I am not terribly worried about the middle-term prospects. I say "middle-term", because there are one or two hurdles to be jumped in the meantime.
The Common Market is in a state of collapse. Only when the leaders of the respective countries of the Common Market, in plying for votes—whether in France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, or wherever—are prepared to stand on a platform and say, "I want your votes not because I am going to bring home the goodies to people in my country but to support the peasants in Southern Italy and to help the people in the Highlands of Scotland and in South Wales", will the Common Market be a legitimate organ.
Ever since the beginning of the Community in 1958 there has not been a politician in Europe prepared to say that. We have seen successive elections during the past two years in Europe, but not one politician has argued on that basis. That is why I do not have any great fears about future prospects. I know that the British people will, in a referendum, throw out all this European policy, including the CAP. The British people are like the fellow who lost half a crown and found a tanner down the next street.

The British people are sulking, and although they do not understand the technicalities, they know that in total the Common Market is no good for them, and they will throw it out lock, stock and barrel.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Notwithstanding the contributions from the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), this has been a debate of high quality. The contribution by the hon. Member for Bolsover needs no comment from me, not merely because of lack of time, but because the House wishes to hear again from the Secretary of State. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a clear indication of some of his thoughts on matters which have been raised.
The comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover do not stand up to scrutiny. They show yet again a total failure to understand what the Community is all about, both now and in the future.
Points made by some of my hon. Friends bear thinking about for the future, and not merely for this debate. In particular, the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) that the Regional Development Fund in the future will be a growing fund needs repeating.
What a depressing contrast there was, at the beginning of this debate, between the attitude of the Secretary of State and the attitude, in the previous debate of the Paymaster-General, who seemed to me to reveal an understanding of the Community and of the purpose of these debates, as well as of the Scrutiny Committee's work, and the central problems being described in the Commission's documents. The Secretary of State, on the other hand—because he was pursuing extended conversations with colleagues on the Front Bench, and on the bench behind him, rather than listening to important points from this side of the House—showed that he is not in the slightest degree interested in the successful economic future of this country, in the Community, or in the complexity and relevance for Britain of the regional policy. In this regard the House should thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) for his comments.
The Secretary of State has his own personal prejudices about the Community—not only about the regional policy but all the other aspects—which will continue to dominate his attitude. Consequently, any potential British contribution to the arguments about regional policy and the future regional fund—bearing in mind the considerable and painful delays already experienced—will be a contribution of minimal size as long as a minority Government is allowed to remain in office.
I ask the Secretary of State to come clean a little more and not merely play the impresario, but give the House a more confident indication that he is prepared to press for what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow insisted upon, which is vital not only for the regions of this country—some of which are experiencing considerable difficulties—but for the whole of the country as well.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I asked at the beginning of my opening speech for the indulgence of the House, and properly so, because, despite the little bit of fun we have had from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), we are now actually engaged in the first process of trying to make the Scrutiny Committee procedure work. The Scrutiny Committee looked at papers put before it and recommended that there be an early debate. The Government responded to that by arranging an early debate on the most neutral motion that they could make, namely, the motion to "take note", which I moved.
The House has to decide at an early stage whether it wants these debates to take place before the Government's mind is made up—in which case it will influence the Government's thinking but the Government's thinking will not be finalised—or whether it wants the Government to describe their attitude and then not be able to take account of the views of the House.

Mr. Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government change their minds about a policy which is in the Government's name—the explanatory memorandum—they should say so?

Mr. Benn: I am coming to that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than most that the explanatory memorandum was submitted by the previous Government. It is not even in the name of my Department; it is in that of the Department of Trade and Industry, which was abolished in favour of a reallocation by the present Prime Minister. The memorandum quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) is not a memorandum submitted by me. It does not represent the view of the present Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course it does not represent the view of the present Government. The view of the present Government, as I made clear in my opening speech, is the view that the Foreign Secretary expressed in his speeches in Luxembourg, namely, that we are engaged in a renegotiation.
It is no good the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham getting up in mock indignation because he discovers that this Government take a different view towards the Community—

Mr. Tom King: Say so.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mr. Benn: I am not prepared to give way. I do not have a great deal of time and I must try to get this on the record.
The position is very clear. The previous Government, on 27th November 1973, submitted an explanatory memorandum to the House, in conjunction with papers from the Community, in which they recommended them unhesitatingly and said that they created no difficulty in terms of Government policy at that time. They were succeeded by a Government who said in their manifesto that they would engage in a fundamental renegotiation and put the issue to the British people.
What we are now engaged in doing is exploring these issues with the Community, and we will then come forward with a recommendation. Anyone who is in any doubt about that simply has not been participating in this debate. What we are now doing—let us be clear about it—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members opposite shouting at me—[Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) getting excited.

Mr. John Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman takes that view, is he really saying that every one of the explanatory memoranda which are now before the Committee and which antedate this Government are to be regarded as null and void?

Mr. Benn: I am saying that the right hon. Gentleman should take responsibility for his memoranda and I will take responsibility for mine. It is as simple

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmatve, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).

It being after half-past Eleven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have some guidance in the extraordinary situation we have reached, in which the Secretary of State has succeeded in his aim of talking out his own motion? May I, through you, ask whether the usual channels will provide time for the debate to be resumed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): We have already been told that it is tomorrow—and "tomorrow" is a parliamentary expression.

as that. The memoranda submitted by the present Government will represent the view of the present Government and the memoranda presented by the previous Government will represent their view.

Mr. Tom King: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 26.

Division No.66.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Faulds, Andrew
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Roper, John


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Gray, Hamish
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brittan, Leon
Hill, James A.
Shersby, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Costain, A. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Winterton, Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
MacArthur, Ian



Durant, Tony
Money, Ernie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dykes, Hugh
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Robert Adley and


Eyre, Reginald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Sir Anthony Meyer.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Atkinson, Norman
Latham, Arthur (City of W'minsterP'ton)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Body, Richard
McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Bryan


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
Milne, Edward
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Moate, Roger
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Evans, John (Newton)
Ovenden, John



George, Bruce
Richardson, Miss Jo
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. John Lee and


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — ST. PETER'S HOSPITAL, CHERTSEY

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman raises his point of order I should indicate to him that he is taking up the Adjournment time of another hon. Member.

Mr. Spearing: At the beginning of this evening's debate Mr. Speaker did not select two admendments on the Order Paper. He said that he would consider


the matter in view of the precedent of the debate. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to draw to the attention of Mr. Speaker the difficulties that we have experienced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I may be the only one, but I am quite clear what has been decided.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the redevelopment plans for St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey. This is an appropriate time to debate the matter, as many people throughout the country are now having the stresses and strains of the National Health Service drawn to their attention. Throughout the country there are calls on the service for greater expenditure. There are well-merited claims by medical and paramedical staff. It seems that from cleaners to consultants it is only a sense of responsibility and dedication that holds the service together. That is a dedication that we should not take for granted any longer. However, I do not feel that because the National Health Service is in some difficulty an alibi is provided for inaction.
Although I would not claim that St. Peter's Hospital is unique in its problems, I am certain that there cannot be any other hospital that has a worse situation with which to contend. Perhaps the House will allow me briefly to give some of the history of St. Peter's Hospital. The site was purchased in the mid-1930s by Surrey County Council to enable an institution for the educationally subnormal to be constructed. The construction took place and the institution is operating to this day. The institution was built on half the present site.
When war broke out in 1939 it was decided to use the remaining half of the site as a war-time hospital. We then saw that most permanent of all temporary forms of accommodation, the Nissen hut. That remained throughout the war. At the end of the war the hospital was designated as a permanent peace-time hospital. There has since been some upgrading of the accommodation, but it would be apparent to anyone that the staff have been acting under severe limitations and difficulties.
The redevelopment plan for St. Peter's

Hospital has five phases. Phase, I was completed in 1967 and phase II in 1970. I stress the extreme desirability of such phases being consecutive—namely, that they should follow one after another as quickly as possible. I do not think that anyone would suggest that a brand-new hospital rising from green fields should be suspended in the middle of construction and should go into service minus, for example, the kitchens, or the operating theatre. But where a hospital is being redeveloped the tendency seems to be to stop after a couple of phases and allow the hospital to muddle on as before. The tendency is to produce a rather lopsided development. That has happened at St. Peter's Hospital.
For example, the maternity services have been concentrated at St. Peter's by throwing in the former maternity services of the other outlying cottage hospitals. The reason for doing so was the recognition of the interdependence of the maternity services, gynaecology and obstetrics. We have the maternity unit on the St. Peter's site yet we have only 24 beds in gynaecology, as opposed to the 64 that are provided for in phase III. Even if work starts later this year it will be four years since the completion of phase II. That is far too long a delay.
St. Peter's Hospital has been designated as a district general hospital. It is required to serve a population of up to a quarter of a million people, yet, in this day and age, it has no intensive therapy unit and no coronary care unit. There are only three beds in the accident and emergency centre. In that centre there is a 24-hour accident service, and I remind the Under-Secretary of State that next Thursday the nearby section of the M3 opens, so the demands on the centre are likely to be even greater.
I want to deal with the phase III proposals in detail and contrast them with what actually exists. In this way, the hon. Gentleman can be reminded of the clear inadequacy of the present facilities at St. Peter's. The centrepiece is a departmental block of 15.000 square metres housing 1 departments. In it it we are to have the pharmacy, occupying 1,080 square metres as opposed to its present 170 square metres in a former Polish Army hut—no doubt of great interest to a military historian but of no


use to the hospital service in 1974.
The pathology laboratory, which now operates on two sites of a total of 600 square metres, is to be provided with 2,115 square metres. Radiology is now crammed into 300 square metres but it is to get 1,250.
I have been round the hospital with the consultant psychiatrist, who showed me the linen cupboard where he has to conduct off-ward interviews, in which people have to talk about their problems among the sheets and pillow cases. If Florence Nightingale returned in this day and age, she would have no readjustment problems in St. Peter's.
Also included in phase III is provision for an acute psychiatric unit, with 120 beds, and a day unit. This is very much in keeping with modern thinking on the treatment of the mentally-ill, which is to take them into short-stay accommodation and return them to the community as soon as possible. In our area, Holloway Sanatorium is the long-stay psychiatric hospital, and it is to be closed when the new unit opens at St. Peter's. The staff at Holloway have been told of this fact, but no work has yet begun on the unit at St. Peter's. The problem of recruiting at Holloway can be imagined.
Phase III also includes the very important provision of housing accommodation for hospital staff. Our area is a high-cost housing area, so this scheme will be extremely important.
The hon. Gentleman may say that it is important to keep all hospitals reasonably abreast in terms of development and that one must not go too far ahead at the expense of another. Guildford, Ash-field, Kingston and Frimley Park hospitals, nearby, have all experienced substantial new developments, however, and St. Peter's has become the Cinderella—the poor relation—of the area.
One consultant post is being kept open permanently at the moment and occupied by a locum, since St. Peter's will not give or seek a commitment from anyone while this terrible uncertainty hangs over the future of the hospital. The urgent need is to name a date for the start of phase III.
I gather that the tender was agreed over a year ago and that since then it has had to be brought up to date. I gather, also, that its formula was based on wrong cal-

culations. While this is going on, the cost is escalating all the time. I urge the hon. Gentleman to get the parties together and put them in a locked room until they come to an agreement.
The least the House can do for the staff of this hospital—for whom no praise can be too high—is to come to a decision at the earliest date. Every day the staff have to contend with appalling difficulties. They have to exercise determination and ingenuity. They have spent much of their time since 1968 in working parties and committees, planning and working towards not some dream hospital but just a hospital that will do the job for the people in the area.
I ask the Minister not to give the staff of this hospital and the people in the area some sort of flannel, or some hopeful statement about the future. They are beyond that now. They feel bitterness and a sense of frustration. The only thing that will satisfy them is for the hon. Gentleman to name a date when the bulldozers will move on to the site. That will be music to their ears. That is what they want to know: When will the date be?

11.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. David Owen): The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) has deployed a powerful case for the rebuilding and redevelopment of St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey. This hospital, as he rightly says, is basically a war-time hutted building. The South West Thames Regional Health Authority has adopted, in principle, the former South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board's plan for a phased development of the site to increase its size from the present 460 beds for acute and maternity cases only to a total of 1,100 beds.
On completion, St. Peter's will become the main district general hospital for the North West Surrey District, which embraces the new local government districts of Runneymede, Woking and part of Elmbridge. The estimated 1981 population for this district is 264,000, which certainly justifies the development of full district general hospital services. As the hon. Gentleman said, at present this district is served by many different hospitals—13 in all and many of them very old.
In addition to St. Peter's there are four small acute hospitals at Woking, Wey-


bridge, Walton-on-Thames and Egham. There are three different hospitals for mentally handicapped people, a mental illness hospital—the Holloway Sanatorium, with 457 beds at Virginia Water—and a number of small specialist hospitals.
Even with these 13 different hospitals there are still gaps in the hospital services in the district which are filled by the use of acute geriatric and mental handicap beds elsewhere. It is vital that the long-term pattern is rationally worked out. I sympathise with the hon. Member in some of his criticisms about the way phasing of hospitals has been developed in the past. To a great extent I fear that that reflects the phasing of our economic progress and the unevenness of the growth of our national product since the war.
The new St. Peter's Hospital is broadly central to its proposed catchment area, lying only slightly north-west of the main concentration of population in the district. I give these details because they are the basic background to the decision to make this the district general hospital. My Department shares responsibility with the former regional board for its decision to develop on the existing St. Peter's site, which was, I understand, chosen in preference to other possible sites because it was possible to make full use of the existing hospital buildings in the course of the redevelopment.
As the hon. Gentleman said, current plans are that when complete the new hospital will contain 708 acute beds, 129 maternity beds, 140 geriatric beds, 120 psychiatric beds and 26 beds for the mentally handicapped, with further long-stay beds provided in the existing Botley's Park Hospital, nearby. This should cater adequately for the needs of the population concerned. The development of this important hospital is, however, phased to allow for decanting from and demolition of existing buildings.
It is not necessarily due to financial restrictions, although I do not deny that phasing is an aspect of the financial problem. Phases I and II were completed on time by 1970 at a total cost of £1½million. Phase I comprised four major and one minor theatre suites, associated recovery beds and a central sterile supply department. Phase II made

available 120 much-needed maternity beds, isolation beds, special care baby cots and, among other things, accommodation for residential staff. All these additions and improvements to the services are now in full use, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the future.
No particular difficulties were involved in the execution of either of the first two phases of the scheme. Phase III is the two-part phase consisting of a block to house new X-ray, pathology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy and out-patient departments, a separate 120-bed mental illness unit and a day hospital, to which the Government attach considerable importance.
Part I of this phase—the new departmental block—has suffered a number of setbacks. It was put out to tender in April 1973. Unfortunately, the lowest tender, received in July 1973, was higher than the Department's then approved cost for the scheme, even despite an increase in the Department's cost allowances since the tenders were first invited. It was then affected by the reductions in public expenditure announced last December by the previous Government. Hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed to cuts in public expenditure right across the whole aspect of our public life. There was a reduction of £111 million in the projected hospital expenditure for this current year. A great many of the difficulties that the National Health Service is currently facing stem from those decisions made last December.
Throughout my political life I have advocated higher levels of public expenditure and, furthermore, I have been prepared to tell my constituents and electors that that means that they have to pay taxes to get those services. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will carry more conviction in persuading the House of the need for hospitals in their own constituencies if they ensure, not, perhaps, individually, but collectively, that their attitude to public expenditure and taxation shows a marked change from that which has been common to them whether in or out of Government. It simply is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to agree to cut public expenditure in general and then to advocate increases in public expenditure in particular.

Mr. Pattie: I do not wish to get into a debate with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but I am pursuing the question of the delay which has occurred. I have here a letter which the hon. Gentleman wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 22nd March, in which he said:
I know you will he pleased to learn that it is likely that the funds will be available for the next stage of rebuilding St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey.
That is not an absolute commitment, but that letter was written on 22nd March. Three months have gone by and we have had nothing during the period of the hon. Gentleman's administration.

Dr. Owen: That letter reflects the fact that, despite the fall-back in expenditure which started in October last year and the cuts announced by the Conservative Government in December, we were prepared to consider this scheme on its merits, in terms of overall national priorities. I remember looking at this hospital and being impressed by the need, for instance, to provide better facilities for the mentally ill, which is a priority of the Government's overall policy.
I am just pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that it is all too easy to argue for increased expenditure in particular and then not to will the end when it comes to advocating higher public expenditure in other aspects. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like to be reminded that the basic problems affecting the NHS at the moment stem from the expenditure cuts and the way in which the economy was run during the last three years.
These problems have made it necessary to renegotiate the tenders. The approved cost of the scheme has been raised once more, earlier this year, to take account of more recent increases in building costs.
Phase III was included with a high priority in the regional health authority's capital programme for 1974–75. This was considered by the Department in March, when we gave provisional approval for the scheme to start in the course of the current year. Since then the RHA has been discussing urgently with the tenderers involved the amendments needed to bring the cost within the approved limit. My officials are in close touch with the regional health authority

in these discussions and, provided that it is possible to achieve an acceptable tender, it should then prove possible for my Department to give urgent clearance to the acceptance of the tender, in which case this much-needed development can quickly get under way.
The regional hospital authority expects to invite tenders for the psychiatric unit and day hospital in the autumn and hope that work will commence before the end of the financial year.
Inflation is a considerable problem for the National Health Service as it is for practically all services, and, indeed, for many industries. The National Health Service clearly is affected by inflation in terms of building costs. We are not adopting a rigid, inflexible attitude. We recognise that some tenders will be above cost and we have revised our yardsticks. But there are limits on how much we can approve over and above approved costs. We are, of course, answerable to this House and to the Public Accounts Committee. Much though I would like to give the hon. Gentleman—and, through him, his constituents and the people in the area—a definite statement tonight that we are going ahead, I cannot do so until we have looked at the tenders. I believe that discussions have been taking place in the last few days. A lot depends on the outcome of those discussions. I am afraid that I cannot go any further than that, but the Government have recognised the scheme's priority by giving provisional approval. If it could not be kept within reasonable cost limits one would not be able to approve the tenders. I adopt no position on this. Negotiations are going on and it is everybody's wish that the matter should be settled as quickly as possible.
Phase IV. which was originally planned to start in 1977–78, consists of a 480-bed surgical ward block, additional theatre suites and further much-needed residential accommodation. Phase V, which was planned to be constructed during the early 1980s, consists of a medical ward block, including 140 geriatric beds, administrative buildings, a post-graduate medical education centre and the balance of staff accommodation and other supporting facilities.
It must be borne in mind that responsibility for planning hospital services is now primarily a matter for regional and area


health authorities—in this case, the South West RHA and the Surrey Area Health Authority, which assumed their full responsibilities on 1st April. In addition, the Community Health Council for the North West Surrey district—members of which have recently been appointed and which will be meeting for the first time during the next few weeks—must be consulted and fully involved in the planning of health services in the district.
These new authorities have a much more comprehensive responsibility for health care than had the old regional hospital boards and must try to plan for the best possible care for all the people in their region or area. This means that the size, scope and timing of Phases IV and V will need to be carefully considered both in relation to what are in due course seen as the long-term needs of the local community and to the authorities' assessments of the priorities in both area and region, in the light of the resources, financial and in terms of manpower and womanpower, which are available to them.
There are far too many imponderables to make it possible for me to say at this stage what progress the new authorities will wish, or be able, to make in realising earlier plans for the completion of this redevelopment.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on Phase III. I will let him know as soon as I have advice on the tenders. I only hope that it will be possible to contain this scheme within the approved cost.
To sum up, therefore, Phase III will, hopefully, get the go-ahead shortly, but I cannot make a commitment until I have seen the extent of the tenders and how much they are over the yardsticks. But the timing and content of later phases must depend on what are seen and agreed to be the area, regional and, most important of all, national priorities.
My problem is to try to look at the needs across the country. We cannot just look at the matter in terms of even a region, though that is important. It has been the case that St. Peter's, Chertsey, has shown high need within its region. This has been accepted previously.

Mr. Pattie: It is a source of comfort to me to know that I have been addressing my remarks tonight to a Minister who is also an eminent medical practitioner. One knows he sympathises very much

with the problem of a hospital such as St. Peter's. If he has not already been to St. Peter's, may I extend to him an invitation to visit the hospital in the near future. It is only 19 miles from here and we can arrange transport very easily.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful for the invitation. I should like to visit many more hospitals.
My primary concern is to try to ensure that in all the conflicting demands we are making on the service now we choose the right priorities. I do not doubt that many hospitals need to be rebuilt. I also do not doubt that there is a need to put an emphasis on primary health care. It seems to have been agreed in debates recently that the staff in the National Health Service must be a first priority. Many of their salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living or with comparable wages in other services and other industries.
We will not get, and cannot reasonably expect, the sort of service that we have traditionally had from the National Health Service unless we put right the problems of morale. The work load for many of the staff has changed quite dramatically over the last 10 or 20 years, but at the basis of a lot of their discontent lies salaries. That means we shall have to pay more for the people who work in the National Health Service. That means that unless we are to get a substantial increase in resources we shall have to choose more carefully some of our priorities.
Capital allocation to hospital building is separate from revenue allocation. Increased capital expenditure always brings increased revenue spending. We have to look very carefully at how much money will be available for capital spending. The capital cuts imposed, unless a dramatic change in the country's economic state takes place, will continue, not necessarily at the same level but a lot will depend on the overall economic position. I do not hold out hopes of a major change. There will need to be considerable stringency in capital allocations over the next few years.
There are valid arguments why one should not disrupt the development of those hospitals aready started, particularly when the phasing has been planned so as to follow on logically from the first two phases.
I hope it will not be long before we are in a position to make a more definite statement about the future.
If the nation wishes for the health service that I certainly wish for, it will have to be prepared to face the expenditure implications. The nation will also have to be prepared to face the implications of taxation, which are part and parcel of the whole attitude to increasing public expenditure.
I believe that the National Health Service faces difficulties of inflation. It is not collapsing. It faces acute problems. There are aspects of the health service which are the admiration of the world.

Within the health service now there are standards of care and attention which are the envy of the world. But it needs to be admitted frankly that there are many areas which need more resources, both of money and of manpower and woman-power. Certainly it will be the aim of this Government to restore those aspects of the service which have been neglected in the past, so that we can be proud of all aspects of our National Health Service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.